Slashdot Mirror
New And Improved LCDs
Ender42 writes "Princeton scientists have created a variety of light-emitting materials that could greatly accelerate the development of flat-panel computer screens and other compact video displays. The discovery, a feat of engineering materials at the level of quantum mechanics, also may yield insights into the basic properties of light-emitting substances. " Practically speaking this means cheaper, higher res, lower power LCD displays.
"
I disagree for a number of reasons. First, some people "need" 3-billion xterms (or whatever) on the screen at once, which means they must be very small and hence need a high resolution to be readable. Resolution translates directly to screen-realestate (if your eyes can take it). Of course this could be customizable, but it's not true that size and res have "NOTHING" to do with each other. Secondly: performance. You probably want to scale everything but that is an extreme waste of precious cpu-cycles. Switching virtual desktops is slow enough as it is, if I have lots of windows opened. And if anybody thinks you can get away without antialiased/interpolated scaling just have a look at ghostview or any other font-scaling software. It looks like total crap. Almost unreadable IMHO, even at font-sizes that could _easily_ allow for very pretty characters. In all cases when I bought a new monitor for higher resolutions it was to increase the space on my desktop, never for better "clarity". But I agree that more clarity (nicer fonts mainly) would be cool. I'm wondering almost daily why I don't have xterms with multicolored-font-support, able to use antialiased bitmap-fonts (man, do I love RiscOS *sigh*). Perhaps I'm just stupid and have not yet found it (ideas anybody ?). That should be so easy to do (yeah, "do it yourself" :), and would be more important, at least for me, than simply higher resolutions. To summarize: your idea sounds great but is impractical, wasteful and unsupported. I would like to be proven wrong ;)
twi (linden@rhein.com)
NIC card.
--
Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, you are usually right.
****Gfx Scrollbar Special case hit!!*****
This is absolutely awesome. i want these displays!
Couple this with a Crusoe proccessor, and you've got a High-Res, long lasting portable.. I have but one word for this.. Sweeeeeeeeet! Now, when them Color Palms come out... woowza.. sweeet!
--
Insert Witty Sig Here
I think what the parent comment was saying was clarity & high-resolution should be independant from amount of real-estate. Ideally, all monitors would be infinite resolution, and real estate would be fully adjustable (i.e. not tiers, just a lil' bar you could move left to right to make everything smaller, until you're comfortable.)
Does this mean I can run 1600x1200 or 1920x1680 on my laptop now?
--
Lab test show that use of micro$oft causes deadly cancer in lab animals.
I thought a third advantage of LCDs over LEDs was that LCDs require less power to operate. This article claims that the new OLEDs takes even less power than LCDs. That's pretty cool if you ask me.
Finally, you'll be able to use the computer in bed!
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
It's too bad you're not using Aqua. Or NeXT. THEY'VE got scalable GUIs.
In 3.1, it was easy. I think in win.ini, you added/modified a few settings, and the border size, icon spacing, etc all changed...
Then again, having windows "in-proportion" is a nice idea, but pointless if the icons you're concerned about are, oh, 1 mm on a side.
Another problem with making LED displayes in this way is the price. You'd need one big wafer for a monitor, and if you think the P3 is expensive, just compare the surface area of a P3 chip (~2cm^2) to that of a reasonable screen display. a 20" at 2500cm^2 screen is 1250 times as big!
If yo want to run 1600 just go buy a 21 inch monitor. It's pretty neat having a display that big. My desk is a bit small so I put my monitor about 8 inches off center. My eyes have to refocus when I look at the far right edge. Just enough to notice, not the least bit annoying.
How do you become a multibillion dollar multinational coporation by passing the savings onto your customer.
Successful innovation in business has always been about making more and making them cheaper. If you can make twice as many at half the cost, you can easily cut your prices 25% or more over the competition and still make a killing. Free enterprise at work!
I'm not a journalist, but I play one on slashdot
Probably this will be directed more toward the portables market, because of the greater energy efficency.
and please read the article next time.
For a run down see
Cambridge Display Technologies - Technical Info
it gives a good technical overview of the technology.
Effectively since it is all on a polymer substrate they can make screens into an shape or size, e.g. a Display wrapped around a glass!
IIRC they had problems with premature burnout, i.e. after about ~5000 hours the display quality deteriorated rapidly. QFX
You left out the most important part:
Additional funding came from the Department of Defense, the Air Force and the National Science Foundation.
When does the government stop stealing money through taxation and, through university research, giving it to businesses?
Make sense.
LCDs work by blocking light. So, to make a panel to give off N brightness unit, the backlighting must be at least N bright, but it has to be brighter because even in transparent state you will not get 100% light transmission efficiency. (Even regular window glass only transmit 90% or so or light, I think).
LEDs work by light emission. If the LED emit N bightness unit, you only have to feed in the juice to give N brightness unit to get a N brightness unit panel...
-=- SiKnight
Liquid crystal displays actually have to realign crystal cells, which is quite a lengthy process (which causes the ghosting). LED's are just a P/N junction. Turn power on -> light starts as soon as the junction triggers. Turn power off -> light dies.
OLED's should have comparable performance to LED's, which can have refresh-rates in the megahertz.
Display size (1600x1024) is not resolution. Resolution is dots-per-inch. And while Windows handles dpi deplorably, it is does handle it.
Display Properties->Settings->Advanced->General
The setting is labeled "Font Size", but it just adjusts the screen's dpi setting (which is shown below the control). Fonts are most obviously affected, but the size of the window widgets will also scale. (Because they're just glyphs themselves: try removing Marlett from your font folder.) And, theoretically, WYSIWYG-aware apps will also scale properly.
<RANT>At least, that's how it's supposed to work in theory. In practice, I've found that most Windows apps are blissfully unaware of what the real screen resolution is. This is what happens when you implement a feature half-assed and provide barely adequate support, much less drawing attention to it or requiring adherence to the standard.
And it's not even that difficult to do. Wasn't the whole point of DDC to allow monitors to report their physical configuration back to the OS? But no! Most el-cheapo monitors can barely be asked to report non-generic information, much less resolution, gamma and phosphor characteristics necessary to create adequate WYSIWYG. So Windows is made to rely too much on INF files, encouraging the hardware manufacturers to put less effort into DDC. And as for your LCD, well WYSIWYG should be nothing more than trivial since LCDs have discrete pixels. So we always know the exact size of the screen, the size of the pixels, and therefore the exact resolution for any display size. How hard is it to divide 12.7" by 1600? But apparently, that kind of math is too complicated for Windows, and you have to tell Windows what the dpi is yourself, and in a dialog that takes no less than 5 clicks to access.</RANT>
ObOn-topic:
So would it be possible to make an organic laser-emitting diode based on this process?
Any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from Gods.
I'm reserving comment about whether eyestrain will or won't exist with these screens. On the one hand, the light emitted is of a lower intensity, not to mention the lack of x-rays. But it's still emitted light, and our eyes evolved around looking at reflected light. And then there's the matter of refresh. I've never seen an OLED of any variety or incarnation, so I'm obviously talking out of my ass. But while the article mentions that these new hybrid OLEDs are faster than some older types, that still says nothing about how fast they are compared to LCDs or CRTs. So until I actually see one actually working, I have to wonder how practical they will be for computer applications without any kind of flicker or persistance.
Now, how about a sheet-sized OLED acting as a backlight to a LCD screen.
Any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from Gods.
sounds to me like this is ready for prime time.
_________________________
your problem can be taken care of in 6 easy steps:
1. Go to best buy.
2. in the computer section, ask sales person for a new (insert number, >15 here) inch monitor.
3. give man at cash register credit card, sign on dotted line.
4. go home
5. unconnect old monitor, connect new monitor
6. change resolution setting in OS of choice to one that fits your new monitor, ie: 17": 1024x768, 19":1280x1024, etc.
-----
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
physicists around who can confirm the validity of this - OLEDs can be made from two types of molecules, fluorescent and phosphorescent. ?? If this is so then does this mean that there are actual molecules that glow in the familiar yellow/green colour patterns that we've all become familiar with? Heck - or even that molecules themselves give off light; sorta *virtual flashlight* effect.
I am the first to admit lack of knowlege but I was under the impression that light in the visible spectrum is a by-product of chemical reaction that occurs at the molecular level, not due to the molecules themselves. Can anyone clarify..
The prospects for palmtops/wearables/other portables are especially nice. Higher res, lower power...but...um...cost...?
Well, it's a start.
-Ravagin
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is NPR! And that means....it's time for a drum solo!"
Karma: T-rexcellent.
Every time I think I'm about to spend a chunk of money on a new system, this sort of thing makes me want to wait. At this rate, I'll be 'about to buy a new computer' about the time I move into my Moon House...
I thought I was the only one who felt this way. ;)
Manufacturers need to stop shrinking down resolutions to the point of unreadability, and instead work on increasing real estate.
Meaning, I want everything to appear at the nice, legible size it shows up as at 1024x768. But I want the desktop size to be like 1600x1200 (or greater).
Same number of pixels per inch, just more pixels on the entire monitor.
This seems like such an obvious problem.. does anyone know if this is being addressed, anywhere?
Hm, I believe that you can make the fonts in windows as big as you want them to be. Go to the display settings menu, then go to settings, then advanced. There should be a font size menu... if you go to other, you should be able to type in any percentage you want in that little box.. (well, up to 500% normal size... which i HOPE is enough.)
;) )
Also, about borders and icons.. also in display properties, if you go to appearance, you should be able to change those as well.
Note: I'm using Win98... not sure if it's any different in 95/NT/2000 or whatever. (I'm ASSUMING that you're not still using 3.1
Hope that was some help.
-- Dr. Eld --
Agreed...but ultimately, I want direct optic nerve or brain interfacing, the ultimate heads-up (or down, or whatever) display. (That'll do until I get downloaded. :-)
It's probably going to be a while before they get very cheap:
Princeton University has applied for a patent on Forrest's work and has licensed rights to the discovery to Universal Display Corporation
I can't see a company with control over this sort of technology not exploiting it for everything they can get.
Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare
Well, this would be something if it would hit the market...I'd paste it all over my walls if it ever did. Unfortunately, there's always an incredibly long delay between the discovery of a certain technology in a lab and the moment that technology comes into wide use. For my kids' sake (I'm 24), I hope it's worthwile, more worthwile at least than cathode-ray tubes (1920's technology).
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
"Hey check out my 4500x3375 display... you need a 36 inch monitor to even see the text..."
Now why not take advantage of the possibilities and make everything look nice? Text, for example looks pretty much pixelized on todays screens.
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
Scalable to a very small extent yes.
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
It's doubtful that this will lead to lower end-user costs.
The material is cheaper to produce - thus production costs are lower. So the companies making it aren't paying as much to produce each unit...
End-user pricing, however, is largely based on features, rather than production costs. If these displays are brighter, higher-res, larger physically, etc... there is NO REASON for companies to price them much lower than the current offerings.
If they price 15" versions of these at the same level as current-tech 15" lcd screens, they'll have a boatload of stuff that the current-tech ones don't (higher-res, brighter, lower-power, etc...) -- that's the draw. For $999 which would you buy? This 15" lcd screen that'll do 1024x768, or this new-tech 15" led-based screen that's brighter, clearer, and will go up to 1600x1200? You'd choose the 2nd, based on featureset. It doesn't matter that the company is making a much larger profit off of it -- you're getting a better monitor for the same price.
End result: Better products for the same or slightly higher (b/c it's better) prices, while lining the producer's pockets a bit thicker.
(of course, there's always the possibility that a company would cut prices to undersell competitors, but that's fairly remote considering the profit to be made off these sorts of things)
I think a lot depends here on the market they will be aiming at - if they go for the executive large-screen laptop market (ultrathin laptops don't have much battery space, so tend to need frequent recharges) then the price can be astronomical and it will still sell. if they want to compete with traditional desktop monitors, though, they will need to compete on price AND have a low failure rate for individual pixels :+)
I WOULD like to see a nice, flat 21" monitor capable of 1600x though
--
-=DaveHowe=-
LED's are just a P/N junction, today we can fit millions of these on a chip. The junction in an LED isn't really that much bigger, so theoretically these things could be built like integrated circuits, including the current-limiting resistors and the latch-and-multiplex circuits sitting at the base of the LED itself. We're only talking 20000 micron technology IC's here, which is hardly difficult by any stretch.
The current problem is the patent on the new high-intensity blue LED if I recall correctly.
Not really, it's up to windows applications to do their own scaling, and they should determine font sizes from the system properties. System controls etc have fonts set to the system's, but it's up to the application, when it does it's own drawing to do the same. If Windows was to take over an application (which it could) you'd have application developers complaining that windows isn't listening to the font or gdi requests.
How do you become a multibillion dollar multinational coporation by passing the savings onto your customer. I'll bet we start to see ad campaings telling us to pay more for the screen 'cause we'll pay less on our power bill, and not have to get eye surgury.
Oh shit! I forgot to click "Post Anonymously"...
How much cheaper? No average joe is going to put out $900-1000 bucks for a 15" LCD screen. I would rather get a 21" Viewsonic for 600. LCD Might not get very popular if the prices dont go down... same thing with rambus memory. (Besides all the defects in intels design)
-- We should kill all the intolerant people in the world.
Everybody keeps considering these new break throughs to be great for their massive desktop psuedo-supercomputers, I'm wondering why researchers don't develop head mounted displays to a greater extent. I mean seriously, who among us would not awnt to have a wireless unit that pretty much look and feel like sunglasses, but are wirelessly attached to your server at home, and takes input ala Star Trek... But seriously, the products available now, are just too bulky, and hard to deal with, not to mention expensive... anyway... here's a couple sites that sell head units if anyone really wants to see what I mean
Seattle Site Systems
Kaiser Electro-Optics
CGSD -VR
As you can see, a person would have to be seriously disturbed to wear them in their office, let alone the public!
would anybody other than myself prefer to have an eyepiece rather than a monitor?
fart=funny
Here's a link to the company that will be commercializing the technology. Looks like they've already been working with OLEDs for a while.
I use one of the high res SGI flat panels (1600x1024, I think) and I love it, except for one problem, OS support. Believe it or not, the dpi is so high and the screen is so bright, that it gives me eyestrain very easily. Even with the largest fonts on Winbloze, they are still much smaller (but very clear!) than on my crappy 15" 1024x768 monitor at home. I wonder when we are going to see a decent solution to this problem. Not just fonts but true scalability! Window borders, icons, etc would all be the same dimensions relative to the monitor size. It is what is needed next, I wonder how long till we get it?
-- Moondog
For more info about OLED, look on Kodak's site:c ts/specialProducts/OEL/oelIndex.shtm l
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/produ
But here's a product that puts to practice a real breakthrough in flat panel display technology. (though I'm not sure about it's power consumption).
-- kwashiorkor --
Pure speculation gets you nowhere.
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
Jumping to Conclusions.
That said, this technology does (as the article correctly emphasizes) enable the construction of much lower-power displays than what is currently used. LEDs have very low heat dissipation, which translates into less wasted current, especially when compared to the heat put out by an LCD backlight. Also, without a backlight, you can make the panel somewhat thinner, so the various comments about using this to make headmount or pda/cellphone displays are probably right on track as to where OLEDs will end up being important.
Quantum mechanics: the dreams that stuff is made of.
This small-molecule organic display business is quite good, and Forrest is a great researcher in this field, but I think the best is yet to come. I work with light-emitting polymers at UCSB, and I just wanted to comment that in terms of processability and general 'toughness' (i.e. resistance to physical damage) polymer displays will be the ones used in your palm pilots and cel phones. Of course, the only polymer displays that I have seen working have been one color devices for cel phones, so full color is still a ways off yet. Another thing to note is that while it is great to see someone from my field make it to slashdot's front page with what appears to be 'industry-ready' technology, no-one has commented on the great drawback of organic displays (both small-molecule and polymer)- they are tremendously air and UV sensitive. If left exposed to air and normal light, these materials can degrade very rapidly, and engineering an protective layer is not as easy as you think (i.e. you can't just coat it in a transparent polymer layer - oxygen can still diffuse through it). Just be patient for a year or so, and then start looking for this stuff commercially. As a side note to all this, light-emitting polymers can be made into solar-cells with a little modification, so keep your eyes peeled for some light and cheap solar cells in the near future!
If you read the article, you can see that this is *NOT* for LCD use. It's an L*E*D display.
LCD displays work by having an optically active (chiral) organic molecule layer (called the liquid crystal) sandwiched bewteeen 2 layers of polarizing filters, set at 90 degrees angle. When a current is applied the orientation of the liquid crystal layer changes, and the light's polarization plane doesn't get rotated the 90 degrees to clear the second filter. (Thus appearing to be dark). Take away the voltage, the crystals returns to ground state, plane polarized light is rotated 90 degrees, and it clears the second filter and appears to be transparent. This is how LCD displays on calculators work; color displays built on this principle and add a backlight on the back (ie, laptop) and by controlling the amount of light that passes thru for each pixel, generates the different colors. Note that the light emmision criteria has nothing to do with the liquid crystals; that's why you can't read your calculator in a dark room, and that's why palm devices have a backlight. Another cool thing to try is to take a polarizing sunglasses and hold it between your eye and the laptop screen and rotate it slowly. The display will get darker (at 90 deg) and brighter again (at a full 180 deg).
Now that we have amused ourselves with LCD technology, let's take a look at what these guys at Princeton actually did:
They found a new material that can be used in light emitting diodes. LEDs are used for indicator lights on the electronics that we all love. Traditionally, LED displays for flat panel applications are problematic for 2 reasons:
A: Making the pixels small enough, on a large display.
B: Finding a materials for blue LEDs.
The problem with blue LEDs was solved a few years back, but as far as I know A is still a limitation. If you ever look at those big "SonyTron" LED displays in stadiums, up close the pixels are about the size of your THUMB.
In order for this to suceed, there needs to be a good commercial process to apply the OLED material onto an (ideally) plastic substrate. Plastic substrates are really the way to go because they are less prone to breakage and don't require massive retooling. Hopefully, since the material is organic in nature, incorporating it onto plastic won't be such a difficult idea.
-=- Terence