Posted by
timothy
on from the patience-wearing-thin dept.
crwulff writes "The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle today is carrying a story about Kodak's newest OLED display venture. Unfortunately only a prototype to look at here but at least it is on the way in a couple years." It's worth it just for the photograph. Maybe best to hold off on a plasma TV ...
Re:Better pictures, more info
by
kwashiorkor
·
· Score: 5, Funny
An interesting comparison of the current flat-panel display technologies. It's not exhaustive, but it gives you a good 20,000 foot view. Note that this is on the site of an OLED tech competitor, trade named "iFire" which is thick-film transistor based so it's slightly slanted.
The iFire technology is pretty cool too. Seems to be a lot less expensive than OLED, though it's not as bright so less useful for genreal purpose displays. Both techs have been in development for years with very little, commercially, to show.
Apparently TDK and Sanyo are both pursuing potential iFire solutions, though I'm sure all display manufacturers are currently investigating all of the alternatives. Way too soon to throw all one's eggs in one basket.
-- -- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
Jumping to Conclusions.
Will they be able to compete with lcd in 2 years?
by
icejai
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Kodak says the 15-inch screen is a prototype and won't be on the market for two or three years.
I wonder how cheap 15 inch lcd screens will be in 2 to 3 years. They're already falling pretty drastically already. And once these OLED monitors come to market, will kodak and sanyo be able to make a profit if these lcd screens continue to drop for 2 years? They could always make them bigger i guess.
More Info on OLED
by
PunchMonkey
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The article is pretty sparse about what OLED is... Dupont has a pretty cool page about their displays with some info that reminds me of my science text book back in high school.
-- I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
Yes, the O stands for organic, which in this case
by
kfg
·
· Score: 5, Informative
means *plastic.* Polymers are organic compounds, which means containing carbon, as opposed the the silicon of traditional diodes.
I've also got his hot news flash for you, you're covered in bacteria already.
KFG
Lifespan?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Have they solved the short lifespan of the organic light emitting compounds, particularly in the blues? I notice that the photo in the article didn't have a lot of rich, deep blue hues. Was that on purpose?
Except that I rushed out to buy this fancy LCD flatscreen, so my rendering of the "brighter and more colorful display" is limited by my darker, lower-saturation display.
-"Zow"
Where's my video t-shirt?
by
HillClimber
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I won't be happy until my 24 fps video t-shirt can go through wash and tumble dry with all the colors as bright as the day it was new. Hurry up guys!
Re:These things make me nervous
by
Kenja
·
· Score: 5, Funny
"There is bacteria in many things, yoghurt for example, but we don't worry about them escaping and making us ill."
Perhaps YOU dont worry about it. But you'll be sorry once the yoghurt gets you.
--
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:These things make me nervous
by
Teun
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs) are optoelectronic devices based on small molecules or polymers that emit light when an electrical current flows through them. They are being developed for applications in flat panel displays. A simple OLED consists of a fluorescent organic layer sandwiched between two metal electrodes. Under application of an electric field, electrons and holes are injected from the two electrodes into the organic layer, where they meet and recombine to produce light.
Polymers by such tongue twisting names as polythiopene (red), polyfluorene (blue) and polyphenylenvinylen (green) consist of aromatic benzene rings which are pearl strung via carbon double bonds. As in conventional light-emitting diodes, the benzene electrons are excited by an exterior voltage of 3 to 5 Volt. In returning to their original state they emit light in a colour specific to their material which is exceptionally brilliant and soft.
-- "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Re:Organic? Can you eat it?
by
croftj
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Just like you can eat arsenic, ammonia etc.
-- --
Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
3-color or 4-color?
by
Smallpond
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The problem with LED displays is the reverse of the problem for printing. In printing its tough to get true black by combining cyan, magenta and yellow, so they do 4-color printing, CMYK (K for black).
With LEDs, they want to do RGBW (W for white) to get true whites, but the article doesn't say whether they're doing three or four colors. Here's an article on organic white LED:
Re:3-color or 4-color?
by
MyHair
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Do you have any sources for that?
Frankly it sounds like BS to me.
Solid objects (like ink-printed paper) reflect light and therfore have subtractive coloring. The CMY inks don't absorb enough light to make black well, or at least they're hard to combine that way.
Lights, like these OLEDs, are additive color. I can't imagine them not being able to make white.
I've played with colored light bulbs in a darkroom before and you can make it perfectly white pretty easily. Mixing crayons to make black doesn't seem to work, though. Same concepts as far as I can see.
These things sound interesting. There is no constant backlight, so presumably you save a lot of enery buy using just enough to make the right color and brightness instead of powering a constant white and dimming it with LCDs in front.
Re:3-color or 4-color?
by
RovingSlug
·
· Score: 5, Informative
In addition to red, green, and blue OLED materials, Kodak researchers have successfully formulated white-emitting materials. Using a dual emitting layer--each emitting in a complementary color--they have produced white OLEDs that yield not only an excellent white hue, but a good color stability over a wide range of light levels. The white hue is easily adjustable to any shade from pale yellow to light blue. The device life exceeds exceeds 20,000 hr (Figure 2).
Just as moldy as the other organic compounds around your house, and in your computer, like the case of your existing monitor.
Organic != biodegradable, it means containing carbon, like a diamond, which is about as far from biodegradable as you can get.
OLED's are are made in polymer sheets rather than in individual chips of silicon. Ultimately this will make them cheap, rugged, rollable and producable in almost arbitrary sizes, like wallpaper.
I feel a Ray Bradbury story coming on.
KFG
Re:The prototype still has issues
by
Breakfast+Pants
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Back up your claims. Not much more to say than that, but you've been moderated informative for this.. Looking at your message history you also claim to be a naval officer. Not only that you also claimed to do a lot of the initial work on beowulf clustering. In short MOD PARENT DOWN.
--
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Re:The prototype still has issues
by
Linux_ho
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Wow, those Illuminati guys are involved in everything.
-- include $sig;
1;
Re:Will they be able to compete with lcd in 2 year
by
ekephart
·
· Score: 4, Informative
With the costs of energy constantly rising? Yes.
LCDs use about half the power as CRTs (Viewsonic). Sanyo and Kodak already have a 5.5 active matrix OLED that runs on 2 watts at 10 volts. While the 15 inch model would presumably use 9 times this, that's still close to half the power consumption of a similar LCD.
-- sig
Re:2 to 3 years off?
by
Powercntrl
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I've found that my "high-end" CRT, which costs LESS than even a basic LCD, displays much better, and is far more flexible.
More flexible, yes... I'll give you that. You can't beat a CRT for quick refresh rates needed for serious gaming and a good picture in any supported resolution.
What a flat panel LCD monitor lacks in resolutions, it makes up for in display consistency. There is no pincushioning, no color seperation problems, the picture fills the entire screen perfectly, a horizontal or vertical line of pixels is perfectly straight and there is absolutely no flicker. Once you get used to looking at an LCD on a regular basis, the flaws in CRTs really start to become more apparant. I'll admit they're not for everyone, but for mostly browsing the web, wordprocessing, cropping and resizing images and the infrequent game or two, you can't beat an LCD.
--
--- DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Ambiguous: how thick is it?
by
TomRitchford
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The article says "The 15-inch screen is all of 1.4 millimeters thick -- about the size of two quarters back-to-back," but a SINGLE quarter is 1.75mm, so says the U.S. Mint.
Note the lack of blues in the picture
by
shoppa
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Note that the picture on display in the article
shows a floral scene of browns, oranges, and
yellows. No blues. I'm guessing that the
short lifetime of blue organic LED's is still
a major factor.
That said, the original polaroid and technicolor
processes also lacked any blue - they came later.
If your goal is to reproduce skin tones, you
generall don't need much blue; the eye can
do remarkable things in compensating for lack
of blue illumination but still making you
think you see full-color.
What about the microbes' working conditions?
by
theonomist
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Typically, nobody here on Slashdot has the slightest trace of awareness of the ethical implications of the technology they so blithely drool over.
Imagine being pent up in a microscopic prison cell for your life, bombarded incessantly with radiation until you glow in the dark. Imagine thirty thousand chest X-rays every day of your life. That's what these innocent, mindless little creatures are being exposed to. That's the gruesome reality of the brutal and ruthless experimental regime at the Kodak R&D facility.
Live animals are being tortured for their entire lives just to bring you those pretty pictures, and you don't even care. Their microscopic howls of anguish leave you utterly unmoved.
will OLED replace LCD?
by
u19925
·
· Score: 5, Informative
If we had OLEDs in market, people would be inventing LCDs. Both have advantages and disadvantages and it is not clear, if OLEDs would be able to overcome all the disadvantages it has against LCD. Here are few of them:
1. Color accuracy: Each colored dot on the screen will be composite of three LEDs. If their relative light output changes over time, you get color distortion. With LCDs, the transpanrency of each individual pixel controls color. Since this is known to be stabel for a long time (even before color LCDs came, this was known), this is not a problem.
2. Active matrix. OLEDs may be as hard to manufacture or even more than active matrix LCD.
3. Each pixel in OLED takes more current than in LCD. This makes OLED pixels more likely to fail.
It seems, the biggest advantage would only be in power comsumption and hence in portable devices likes laptop, PDA, cell phones etc. For others like home computer LCD screen, LCD TV, home appliances screen and other display, LCD would continue to be used for a long time.
Re:Whats the deal with blue?
by
DeComposer
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Slashdot Mirror
Any screen would look colorful next to that guy.
...at least it is on the way in a couple years.
That's kind of what they said last year.
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
Better pictures, more info
- James
Kodak says the 15-inch screen is a prototype and won't be on the market for two or three years.
I wonder how cheap 15 inch lcd screens will be in 2 to 3 years. They're already falling pretty drastically already. And once these OLED monitors come to market, will kodak and sanyo be able to make a profit if these lcd screens continue to drop for 2 years? They could always make them bigger i guess.
Hmm... super-cheap wall-to-wall flat panel displays.
Yum!
The article is pretty sparse about what OLED is... Dupont has a pretty cool page about their displays with some info that reminds me of my science text book back in high school.
I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
means *plastic.* Polymers are organic compounds, which means containing carbon, as opposed the the silicon of traditional diodes.
I've also got his hot news flash for you, you're covered in bacteria already.
KFG
Have they solved the short lifespan of the organic light emitting compounds, particularly in the blues? I notice that the photo in the article didn't have a lot of rich, deep blue hues. Was that on purpose?
Except that I rushed out to buy this fancy LCD flatscreen, so my rendering of the "brighter and more colorful display" is limited by my darker, lower-saturation display.
-"Zow"
I won't be happy until my 24 fps video t-shirt can go through wash and tumble dry with all the colors as bright as the day it was new. Hurry up guys!
Perhaps YOU dont worry about it. But you'll be sorry once the yoghurt gets you.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Yeah right, have a look at this this site
Organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs) are optoelectronic devices based on small molecules or polymers that emit light when an electrical current flows through them. They are being developed for applications in flat panel displays. A simple OLED consists of a fluorescent organic layer sandwiched between two metal electrodes. Under application of an electric field, electrons and holes are injected from the two electrodes into the organic layer, where they meet and recombine to produce light.
Or have a look here
Polymers by such tongue twisting names as polythiopene (red), polyfluorene (blue) and polyphenylenvinylen (green) consist of aromatic benzene rings which are pearl strung via carbon double bonds. As in conventional light-emitting diodes, the benzene electrons are excited by an exterior voltage of 3 to 5 Volt. In returning to their original state they emit light in a colour specific to their material which is exceptionally brilliant and soft.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Just like you can eat arsenic, ammonia etc.
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
The problem with LED displays is the reverse of the
problem for printing. In printing its tough to get
true black by combining cyan, magenta and yellow, so
they do 4-color printing, CMYK (K for black).
With LEDs, they want to do RGBW (W for white) to
get true whites, but the article doesn't say whether
they're doing three or four colors. Here's an
article on organic white LED:
Nature
Just as moldy as the other organic compounds around your house, and in your computer, like the case of your existing monitor.
Organic != biodegradable, it means containing carbon, like a diamond, which is about as far from biodegradable as you can get.
OLED's are are made in polymer sheets rather than in individual chips of silicon. Ultimately this will make them cheap, rugged, rollable and producable in almost arbitrary sizes, like wallpaper.
I feel a Ray Bradbury story coming on.
KFG
Back up your claims. Not much more to say than that, but you've been moderated informative for this.. Looking at your message history you also claim to be a naval officer. Not only that you also claimed to do a lot of the initial work on beowulf clustering. In short MOD PARENT DOWN.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Wow, those Illuminati guys are involved in everything.
include $sig;
1;
With the costs of energy constantly rising? Yes.
LCDs use about half the power as CRTs (Viewsonic). Sanyo and Kodak already have a 5.5 active matrix OLED that runs on 2 watts at 10 volts. While the 15 inch model would presumably use 9 times this, that's still close to half the power consumption of a similar LCD.
sig
I've found that my "high-end" CRT, which costs LESS than even a basic LCD, displays much better, and is far more flexible.
More flexible, yes... I'll give you that. You can't beat a CRT for quick refresh rates needed for serious gaming and a good picture in any supported resolution.
What a flat panel LCD monitor lacks in resolutions, it makes up for in display consistency. There is no pincushioning, no color seperation problems, the picture fills the entire screen perfectly, a horizontal or vertical line of pixels is perfectly straight and there is absolutely no flicker. Once you get used to looking at an LCD on a regular basis, the flaws in CRTs really start to become more apparant. I'll admit they're not for everyone, but for mostly browsing the web, wordprocessing, cropping and resizing images and the infrequent game or two, you can't beat an LCD.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
The article says "The 15-inch screen is all of 1.4 millimeters thick -- about the size of two quarters back-to-back," but a SINGLE quarter is 1.75mm, so says the U.S. Mint.
That said, the original polaroid and technicolor processes also lacked any blue - they came later. If your goal is to reproduce skin tones, you generall don't need much blue; the eye can do remarkable things in compensating for lack of blue illumination but still making you think you see full-color.
Typically, nobody here on Slashdot has the slightest trace of awareness of the ethical implications of the technology they so blithely drool over.
Imagine being pent up in a microscopic prison cell for your life, bombarded incessantly with radiation until you glow in the dark. Imagine thirty thousand chest X-rays every day of your life. That's what these innocent, mindless little creatures are being exposed to. That's the gruesome reality of the brutal and ruthless experimental regime at the Kodak R&D facility.
Live animals are being tortured for their entire lives just to bring you those pretty pictures, and you don't even care. Their microscopic howls of anguish leave you utterly unmoved.
If you ask me, that's just plain sad.
"Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" -- hey, that's me!
Check out all the outrageous claims, this guy needs to be massively moderated down all over the place.
.org.
I've had the honor of helping out on this prototype
Being a former retail shop owner
Being a Marketing Director
I can assure you that VeriSign not only is 'still in it', but they plan on fighting to regain some control over
What I'd like to know is when he'll give gratitude to those of us that helped him early on.
From a Naval Officer...
1. Color accuracy: Each colored dot on the screen will be composite of three LEDs. If their relative light output changes over time, you get color distortion. With LCDs, the transpanrency of each individual pixel controls color. Since this is known to be stabel for a long time (even before color LCDs came, this was known), this is not a problem.
2. Active matrix. OLEDs may be as hard to manufacture or even more than active matrix LCD.
3. Each pixel in OLED takes more current than in LCD. This makes OLED pixels more likely to fail.
It seems, the biggest advantage would only be in power comsumption and hence in portable devices likes laptop, PDA, cell phones etc. For others like home computer LCD screen, LCD TV, home appliances screen and other display, LCD would continue to be used for a long time.
Blue is a harder color to generate.
Here's an article that describes some of the history and challenges of creating a semiconductor that emits blue light.
Karma
"My monitor died!"