Kodak Releases Digital Camera With OLED Display

arth33 writes "Kodak has announced the LS633 Digital camera with OLED display. The camera and imaging specs are pretty standard (3.1 MegaPixels, 3x Optical Zoom, etc) but the viewfinder screen is a 2.2" OLED screen with a resolution of 512 x 218 pixels. According to the press release at DPreview, 'This large, full color, full motion, flat panel display is sharp, bright and features 165 viewing angles for on-camera viewing and sharing. Packaged in a stylish, metal body, the LS633 is perfect for users who want to show off their pictures on a cutting-edge OLED display.' All this and it's pretty cheap at US$399, and is expected on shelves in April in Australia, Europe and Asia. More pics and information is also available at LetsGoDigital."

Comments

OLED?

[snack-a-lot]

Could somebody please explain what an OLED is, and how is it different from a standard LED?

Is it smaller or brighter or what?

Thanks!

Re:OLED?

[AnimeFreak]

It stands for Organic Light-Emitting Diode.

More info here.

Re:OLED?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sarcasm is not appreciated . Kindly shoot yourself.

Re:OLED?

[Ryan Amos]

OLEDs are Organic LEDs. Basically, OLED technology is like LCD (in its application, the two are about as different as can be technically) except once the technology matures, OLEDs are cheaper, easier to manufacture and don't require a backlight (as like normal LEDs, they produce their own light.) It's not really any brighter (well it may be, but that's not its main advantage.) Basically, they're like LCDs except without all the drawbacks like viewing angle, price and physical sensitivity. Unfortunately, it'll be a few years before this technology gets into computer displays. The current life expectancy of them leaves a bit to be desired, but eventually this will be solved.

Re:OLED?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The current life expectancy of them leaves a bit to be desired,

But don't worry, your camera will be lost, stolen,
or broken before that happens.

Re:OLED?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"You = Karma Whore. All you've done is regurgitate the highlights of every major news article on OLEDs."

Yeah, but until there's a +1 Regurgitation score, +1 Informative will have to do. ;)

Re:OLED?

[whereiswaldo]

Will this eliminate the problem of bright sunlight washing out the display? I can hardly see anything on my Kodak LCD when the sun is shining brightly. That really takes away from the experience since I _need_ the LCD to use my addon lenses (it's not an SLR camera).

Re:OLED?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually display quality OLED's only current advantage is being much thinner than a LCD, since they don't need a backlight. Current displays are small (2x2 in. approx.), require quite a bit of power, are not very bright and have issues with fading over time. More interesting is the branch of OLED research for lighting purposes, hopefully to replace flourescent lights some day.

Re:OLED?

[Anonymous Coward]

The replies you are getting are pretty half-assed, so let me elaborate a little further...

OLED stands for organic light emitting display. Traditional LCD (liquid crystal diode) diplays that are found on laptops use traditional semiconducting materials like polysilicon. The polysilicon is deposited in a thin layer on glass, and transistors are fabricated in this material just like transistors are made on silicon wafers. The tranistors function to send current to small pockets of liquid crystal material above them. These liquid crystals are normally amorphous, like a liquid, but when a current is applied, the molecules in them all line up and block light.

OLEDS use semiconducting polymer instead of silicon.

Re:OLED?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's supposed to, yes.

Re:OLED?

[Saeger]

The current life expectancy of them leaves a bit to be desired, but eventually this will be solved.

Yes, and it'll probably be just a coincidence that these problems are solved right about the same time that the major players' huge investments in the old LCD manufacturing tech begins to break even. :-)

--

Re:OLED?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post was modded as funny, but it's really something serious.

In any event, this is one reason why it's good that Kodak is so involved in OLED technology--as far as I know (which isn't very far), they don't have a lot invested in LCD technology. So Kodak can push it without worrying about losing money on LCDs.

Re:OLED?

[norton_I]

This is BS. Almost everything you say is wrong. It wouldn't bother me except for the "The replies you are getting are pretty half-assed..." bit.

LCD (liquid crystal displays) are constructed of a bunch of liquid crystal material sandwiched between glass plates. Liquid crystals are made of molecules that are very long and thin. In the nematic (or twisted nematic) phase, they line up to all point in the same direction (in twisted nematic, used in many LCDs, the orientation changes as you move between the two glass plates, but is locally the same). By making fine scratches in the glass plates, they can be forced to line up in specific directions, such that the rotate the polarization of light going through it by 90 degrees (or more for STN -- super twisted nematic). You then put polarizers on the faces and you have something that blocks light from a flourecent tube. By applying an electric field to the liquid crystal, the molecules rotate such that they don't rotate the polarization, and it now transmits light. Passive matrix LCDs scan one row at a time and rely on the liquid crystal molecules being slow to reorient to preserve them until the next scam, where as active matrix (TFT -- thin film transistor) displays have little transistors that hold a charge on each cell from one scan to the next.

The big problems with LCDs are that they need a backlight to get good contrast and that they throw away a lot of light because the lamp has to be on even when the pixels are black and a lot of light is lost to color filters to make different color pixels on RGB displays. Also, since it works by rotating polarization, it is very angle sensitive, and they are very slow.

OLEDs are an array of LEDs that are made with an organic polymer semiconductor. Like normal LEDs, they emit light when current passes through a diode, the wavelength of the light being dependent on the band gap of the semiconductor. However, it is much easier to make a fine grid of closely spaced pixels with OLEDs than regular LEDs. The solve almost all the problems of LCDs except that they tend to break down if any moisture gets into them, and water is extremely hard to get out and keep out so they tend to have a realatively short shelf-life. I assume that this problem has been mostly solved here, or a bunch of people are going to get cameras whose display will die within a year or two.

Re:OLED?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Fermi's Solution: Any sufficiently advanced civilization either destroys itself or transcends to superintelligence.

My favorite theories are the ones with no data at all, supporting or otherwise.

Re:OLED?

[cheese_wallet]

"OLEDs are Organic LEDs"

but they aren't diodes right? maybe the D is for display.

Re:OLED?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did you see the word "theory" or "theorem"?

Re:OLED?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple -- OLED is an Open Light Emitting Diode! They're much better than those old proprietary LEDs.

Re:OLED?

[eclectro]

My guess is that they have a very easy way of replacing the display so that anyone can do it -- not unlike a lightbulb.

This is the only way I see OLEDs being acceptable in consumer electronics, unless the lifetime of the device is planned on being very short/disposable. A distinct possibility.

Re:OLED?

[NigelJohnstone]

Also the colours look a lot better.

Without a backlight, black really is black. So white seems very much brighter.

They also make a much wider range of colours than LCD , so you get much brighter more realistic colour gamut.

Re:OLED?

[JimPooley]

>>The current life expectancy of them leaves a bit to be desired,

>But don't worry, your camera will be lost, stolen, or broken before that happens.

Actually, if it's a Digital Camera, it'll be obsolete long before the OLED conks out...

Re:OLED?

[imsabbel]

They ARE diodes. Only they use layers of organic molecules instead n and p doped SI as hole and e- conductors Result: You can create a display matrix of them because the different organic molecules can be vaporated/printed an a surface without destroying each other

Re:OLED?

[Yokaze]

AFAIK, the most important part is, that they aren't as energy consuming as current LCDs, because of:
> [OLEDS] don't require a backlight (as like normal LEDs, they produce their own light.)

LCDs are filtering the unwanted wavelengths, which are previously quite costly produced by the backlight.

And, as people with a digital camera should know, using the LCD drains a lot of energy from the battery.

Re:OLED?

[Anonymous Coward]

Advantages OLED has over LED is it's cheaper to manufacture. Reason being, LCD need a backlight to brighten a display. Without a backlight, it's hard to see outdoors, and impossible to see indoors. The backlight design usually consists of an arrangement of mirror or lights that either directly brighten or reflex light behind the arrangment of LEDS.

OLED, from organic material that emits it's own light. This omits the design for a backlight. Thus knocking off the effort and the pricetag of a screen; time and money (some laptops, the screen is half the pricetag). Plus, without a backlight, that makes implementing a screen more flexible. The screen can be as thin as the the arrangment of the OLEDs themselves. There's no worries about cracking the backlight, so you can bend it to any shape, instead of the standard panel size.

The extra-plus is, it's another overhead the batteries don't have to deal with. With the portal market growing, demand for better battery life is equally demanding. The screens themselves require roughly the same power as the LCD, w/o backlight. In laptops, the backlight has always been a drain in battery life.

In a design point of view, replacing screens would be just as easy. The screen not being attached or build along side with the backlight would be much easier to maintain.

The current disadvantages are, the life span and if it's too early to market. The life span of these screens aren't up to par with LCDs. Not to say they croak within a week, but display manufacturers would like it to be at a competitive time span.

The other disadvantage, being too early to market, is a matter of the display manufacturers. They're waiting and watching the consumer transition into the LCD market from the CRT. If the demand for better and badder LCDs grow into a profitable margin, they'll jump it. But as for now, they rather have Kodak, sony, samsung, play with the 1st generation design, and let them figure the kinks all out before they implement a strategy upon the OLED concept.

Its organic!!

[Anonymous Coward]

OLED.. Organic LED

Re:Its organic!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Organic material? Does that mean it will 'go off' after time?

Re:Its organic!!

[elohim]

Not organic as in biological tissues, but rather organic chemistry. Hydrocarbons et al.

Re:Its organic!!

[BinaryGrind]

So does that mean I could eat it if I really wanted to? ~phate

Re:Its organic!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You could, but your teeth would break and you'd get nasty bits of metal stuck in your gums. Stick to Taco Bell, mate.

Re:Its organic!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, if you want to eat plastic.

Re:Its organic!!

[the eric conspiracy]

Organic = carbon based, in chemical terms. There is synthetic organic stuff like the OLED materials, and natural organic stuff, like cow poop.

I often wear the hat of an organic chemist, and occasionally run into the idea that "organic chemist" is an oxymoron. Of course the confusing point is that the word organic is not really a synonym for "natural". The word organic has a broader set of meanings.

Re:Its organic!!

[fenix down]

First time I've heard someone recommend Taco Bell as a way not to get strange objects stuck in your mouth.

Re:Its organic!!

[schnits0r]

are you sure you didn't mean cmdrtaco?

Re:Its organic!!

[Anonymous Coward]

OLED.. OLE Diode

Re:Its organic!!

[scaramush]

OLED.. Organic LED

Well, Thank God.

It really pisses me off when they put all those chemicals and pesticides in my LEDs.

Re:Its organic!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You moron, it means organic chemistry LED, using hydrocarbon-based materials.

Re:Its organic!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's kind of scary: this thing is emitting "Organic Light".

I prefer the plain old non-organic light myself, thank you very much.

399.00 isn't a bad price

[f00zbll]

for a camera with 3.1megapixel and a screen that doesn't need back lighting. Now if only manufacturers would rate the battery life based on how many pictures it can take with one charge, that would help consumers.

Re:399.00 isn't a bad price

[mskfisher]

Phil Askey, who runs www.dpreview.com has performed this test with many cameras, such as the Canon Powershot G3 (table at bottom of the page).
I don't know if he'll review the Kodak camera or not, but DPReview is a good site for practical information like that.

Re:399.00 isn't a bad price

[mosch]

for what it's worth Consumer Reports gives this information, and an annual website subscription is only $20 or $25. It's not free, but it's a great reference to search any number of purchases.

Re:399.00 isn't a bad price

[Monkey-X]

$399.99 is nothing to get excited about. Until it gets down to under $100, digital cameras will still be limited to professionals and enthusiasts. Longer battery life and more memory are needed before these will become common household items like film cameras are.

However, OLED paired with CMOS imagers may make this possible. Micron just announced 1.3 Megapixel CMOS imagers yesterday. These CMOS imagers promise a large cost reduction and huge battery life benefits. It shouldn't be long before we see 3 megapixel CMOS imagers with OLED displays for cheap, cheap, cheap. They ought to last a while on batteries too...

Re:399.00 isn't a bad price

[realdpk]

Since it's initially available only in Europe, Asia, and Australia, I guess we must assume that 399 is the Australian price (they're the only one with a dollar, of the three).

According to Yahoo! (Reuters?), that's US$245.03

Definitely not a bad price.

Re:399.00 isn't a bad price

[realdpk]

Heh, embarassed. I read the article, without reading the entire summary - I guess the /. submitter must have found out it was in US dollars. My bad. Mod me down, please.

Re:399.00 isn't a bad price

[neur0maniak]

More memory?! What on earth for? My Camera can hold 100's of pictures, until I get it to a computer and upload them. Then it can hold 100's more...

I think that exceeds the capabilities of any film camera...

Re:399.00 isn't a bad price

[Moofie]

Don't get too excited about CU.

I think they do a reasonably good job with rating (say) dishwashers. However, I know that they don't know anything about bicycles (which I know a heck of a lot about), so I'm not convinced they are as expert as they present themselves to be on other things.

I've also never been satisfied with their apprehension of the idea of "good user interface". They don't do a good job rating or reporting ease of use on a lot of stuff.

Just my $.02.

Re:399.00 isn't a bad price

[Anonymous Coward]

I can get a computer for £400. Hard disks, cd readers, a monitor.... How is $400 good value for a little plastic box with some ram and a lens?

why nobody else?

[Snagle]

why havent other companies implemented these into their high-end cameras? I would think somebody would first use these before kodak, I've always seen them as being a little slow on the digital camera technology...

Re:why nobody else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Kodak pretty much invented OLEDs :)

Re:why nobody else?

[Ryan Amos]

Yeah, cept Kodak is the leading developer of OLEDs and owns almost all the patents on them. :)

Re:why nobody else?

[ffsnjb]

Umm, maybe because Kodak developed the technology and has just recently started licensing to other companies? Anymore info might get me fired. :)

Re:why nobody else?

[Snagle]

damn...i just got shut down.

Re:why nobody else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Cambridge Display Technologies holds the majority of patents for OLEDs and PLEDs (polymer LEDs) followed by du Pont since their purchase of UNIAX.

canon s45 is better?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this better than the canon s45

kodak's web site

[mz001b]

And of course, the info is on their website. Including ``Not currently available in the U.S.''

Re:kodak's web site

[Adam9]

And of course, the info is on the website. Including ``... and is expected on shelves in April in Australia, Europe and Asia.''

What?

[DumbWhiteGuy777]

Can someone explain why this is important at all? Kodak probably releases new cameras every week, it's what they do.

Re:What?

[deathcow]

It's really the OLED display thats innovative. (As you might hae gathered from the slashdot article title.)

On typical cameras and monitors, any color LCD display will require a big bright power-hungry light source running behind the LCD to make it glow.

But not in this camera, the Organic LED (read light EMITTING diode) actually glow ! There is no need for a big power hungry light source, since the individual pixels generate light.

Re:What?

[Comen]

Anyone know how the resolution of this OLED compares with normal camera displays of the same size?
Artical says this OLED is 512 x 218 is that good for a 2.2" display or crapy?

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only do they emit their own light, they're viewing angle is much larger than LCD. No more color changing screens at different angles etc.

Re:What?

[jayteedee]

require a big bright power-hungry light source running behind the LCD to make it glow

The light source part is correct, but the "power-hungry" part isn't true. Current backlighting is performed with either White LED's, electrolum, or flourescent tubes, with the flourescent tubes actually being a bit less power-hungry, but, obviously, a little more fragile. The only efficiency is gained by directly viewing the light source (the Light-Emitting-Diode (LED) part of OLED) instead of indirect light via reflection by the current backlighting methods. The big gain is in the Organic (O of OLED) part of the process, which in this case refers to organic plastics (ie, cheap plastics). Great technology, and I'm glad their finally shipping mainstream products, but the parent article and one of the linked articles imply great power savings, which isn't so. Slight efficiency gains, but not leap forward technology in power savings.

Re:What?

[deathcow]

You make many good points, Tonto.

For sure though, for many moon now we see the white man with power hungry backlighting.

Perhaps this "White LED" you talk of is making the backlighting situation better, but remember what happened when we befriended the White Man. He brought us blankets which made our people sick. I say we should attack this White LED on sight!

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

lol. wish i had mod points

Too lazy to read article

[quintessent]

LS633 is perfect for users who want to show off their pictures on a cutting-edge OLED display.

That's about the most informative sentence I've ever read.

So, um. How about some more vital stats, such as life expectancy (since that is one of the drawbacks of organic LED)?

Ads

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no... now we get ads as entire articles? At least we can hide the banner ads with css in mozilla. (or paying $5)

Mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

LetsGoDigital is going to fry any time now. Mirror available here.

Please use, I'm measuring the Slashdot effect. (Seriously! There's no such thing as a karma whoring AC.)

Re:Mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, when I saw this picture I was like, "This seriously needs anti-aliasing." Then I realized that it wasn't a line, it was window shades.

Nar

[Anonymous Coward]

I just got a mavica cd400.
cdrw 8cm discs, mpegone movies and 4MPix
it rocks.
Wait what comes out in the next years, seeya silver nitrate.

Any users have some real world feedback?

[antispamist]

Is this camera anything to be excited about? I 'ass'ume that that the camera's batteries last much longer than most digital cameras.

Any slashdot'rs own/played with one? I'm interesting in these new OLEDs and their real world usefulness.

Re:Any users have some real world feedback?

[general_re]

Is this camera anything to be excited about? I 'ass'ume that that the camera's batteries last much longer than most digital cameras.

Battery life? Dude, you took a wrong turn - this is PRNewswire now, not Slashdot. All you need to know is that it's got a "stylish metal body"...

8-inches Kodak OLED

[Anonymous Coward]

This may be the first Kodak product that uses their own OLED technology, but does anyone remember the article (I think it was from CNET) which contained a quote by a Kodak executive saying they were already shipping 8-inch OLED displays in quantities to a "manufacturer" who they couldn't disclose? A very high resolution screen that would be used in a product that they didn't know much about but that would be a revolutionary one and be released in the first half of 2003?

Somehow, the article has vanished. Even from Google.

The truth is out there and yes, I want to believe.

Re:8-inches Kodak OLED

[elohim]

I'd like to hear more about this. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadi d=21160
There seems to be some speculation about an Apple tablet... a small, white plastic enclosure about 5 by 7 inches is currently being produced by Apple. Maybe we'll see these 8 inch Kodak OLEDs as the display? Are OLEDs touch sensitive or able to accept magnetic stylus input?

Re:8-inches Kodak OLED

[smokin_juan]

military.

Re:8-inches Kodak OLED

[BWJones]

military.

Military what? Any military project I am/was aware of has always used proven technology, especially in the area of displays. The only are where I have ever seen flat panel displays in military use has either been desktop computers or proof of concept stuff. Everyone else is using CRT's still for a variety of reasons. Therefore, I would find it difficult to believe that organic displays had military applications. I would believe the Apple PDA rumors before I buy any claims of organic display use in military applications *yet*.

Re:8-inches Kodak OLED

[another_twilight]

"well, he _told_ me it was 8 inches, but it turned out to closer to 2 ..."

i know, i know - OT

Re:8-inches Kodak OLED

[Mac Degger]

Lighter, less power consuming, viewable at better angles than lcd's and comparable to crt's, and !viewable in direct sunlight! (something even crt's can't always claim!). No, I don't see any obvious military uses either.

But you are right; they'd want to see it proven first.

Re:8-inches Kodak OLED

[Vulture_]

The issue here, I suspect, is reliability. The display can't crap out in the middle of a firefight or imminent 9/11 style attack. CRT monitors won't crap out, so they're used.

Re:8-inches Kodak OLED

[netsharc]

Maybe they're trying to one-up MS's Tablet PC(TM)? If the display uses less energy and gives their tablet PC(No-TM) longer battery life, that would be sweet.

OLED is cool!

[corsec67]

This is great. A consumer device with an OLED display. One of many technologies to counter our lack of significant innovation in batteries. I think that one of the best places for an OLED display is a pda. I hope one is out by the time that my NR-70's batteries die. Neither Handspring or Sony sell replacement batteries, which means that the PDA is a throw-away item, even if I can take out the battery by my self...

Re:OLED is cool!

[peu]

One of many technologies to counter our lack of significant innovation in batteries

want to see real advances in keyboards? see www.canesta.com

this company produces a chipset for adding virtual keyboards to pda units

Small displays

[elohim]

Why have digital camera displays been so small traditionally? Most models I've seen have had 1.5 or 1.8 inch displays. This 2.2 inch display is a nice boost, but there seems to be a lot of unused room (especially to the right of the screen, and below it, in the space occupied by a largish Kodak logo) on the back of this camera. I'd like a bigger screen to preview and review shots better. Is battery life the main concern that's keeping screens small?

Batterylife

[iomega]

Wouldnt this eat batteries?,

mavicas or equivalent with lcd screen eat batteries, whereas turning off the lcd screen is safe for the enviro and the pocketbook

Re:Batterylife

[antispamist]

it's my understanding that OLEDs use signifigantly less energy...right?

Re:Batterylife

[Anonymous Coward]

That's supposed to be one of their key advantages.

Um, they DO this...

[Glove d'OJ]

Look at this review of the Canon G3 on dpreview.com. Scroll down to the "Battery Life" section...

This looks like a nice, comprehensive comparison based upon battery life.

Just check around on the site... you never know what is out there until you look..

-------------------
Stupid should hurt.

Re:Um, they DO this...

[f00zbll]

That's a pretty informative site. I was hoping manufacturers would include it as a standard item in the list of features with all cameras. That way I don't have to go searching the net to find dpreview.com and see if the camera I want is listed.

Re:Um, they DO this...

[Eravau]

And what would you get out of the manufacturers' listed specs? "Up to 1,000 pictures from a charge." This would be under a highly-contrived environment that could never be duplicated in real life. Up to is a magical phrase meaning "somewhere way under this number under normal conditions" that is represented as meaning "usually this number." That's why there are sites like dpreview...to give us the straight dope on what the cameras can do...not just what the makers say they can do.

I've had too many 50 page ink cartridges (that say "up to 300 pages" or something like that)...and other similar experiences to take manufacturers' longevity specs to mean anything in real life usage. Their specs are maxed out under tests made especially for maxing out the specs. They don't tell you anything about what you can actually expect.

will replace TFTs and plasma screens

[Anonymous Coward]

Organic Light Emitting Device/Display

More comparible to TFT diplays than to LEDs.

Cheaper
x10 (or more) faster response times (compared to traditional TFTs)
No need for backlight
Even thinner than TFTs
Can be completely transparent
Can be flexible

see universal display
extract: greater brightness
faster response time for full motion video
fuller viewing angles
lighter weight
greater environmental durability
more power efficiency
broader operating temperature ranges
greater cost-effectiveness


Think how much the industry is making on Plasma screens. Do they have any real incentive to start selling a cheaper alternative?

Re:will replace TFTs and plasma screens

[aweraw]

Organic Light Emitting Device/Display

should be: 'Organic Light Emitting Diode'

Re:will replace TFTs and plasma screens

[schnits0r]

Did anyone else read orgasmic LED?

Re:will replace TFTs and plasma screens

[TheFrood]

Think how much the industry is making on Plasma screens. Do they have any real incentive to start selling a cheaper alternative?

No, "the industry" doesn't have an incentive, but fortunately for us, individual companies do.

TheFrood

Re:will replace TFTs and plasma screens

[anethema]

Think how much the industry is making on Plasma screens. Do they have any real incentive to start selling a cheaper alternative?

Well, a plasma making company might not, or a lcd making company might not, but think. It only takes one company to start selling these amazing, low cost, great contrast, super thin, all around amazing monitors(or tvs) and the prices come crashing down. So does the competition. They will either adapt to sell what everyone wants, or they will die. All the beauty of competition. It only takes one success.

Re:will replace TFTs and plasma screens

[jim3e8]

Think how much the industry is making on Plasma screens. Do they have any real incentive to start selling a cheaper alternative?

They're not necessarily making a lot of money. What they make is a factor of their profit margin and the number of units sold. Selling a cheaper product at high volume could easily lead to higher profits. After all, how many people do you know that own plasma screens? The first company to commercialize OLED in TV displays, at a reasonable price, would be rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

Re:will replace TFTs and plasma screens

[MtViewGuy]

The first company to commercialize OLED in TV displays, at a reasonable price, would be rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

The first company that can make OLED's truly moisture-proof and can make them in 17 to 21 inch true diagonal sizes will truly making money hand over fist. Especially considering the fact OLED's are likely going to be several times cheaper than TFT LCD's.

Re:will replace TFTs and plasma screens

[grandpohbah]

Think how much the industry is making on Plasma screens. Do they have any real incentive to start selling a cheaper alternative?

Yes they have tons of incentive, they can make more money! Currently, Profit margins on plasma screens are very high - about 30%. Simple econ 101 tells you that the manufacturers can do this because people are willing to pay that much. Even if the television only cost $500 to manufacture, people would still pay $4000+. So of course the industry has the incentive to sell a cheaper alternative - but that doesn't always mean that it'll cost less.

Re:Off-topic, but ..

[0biJon]

I don't mean to sound harsh but why don't you sell your computer so you can donate the money to starving children in Africa?

Probably because...

[TheSHAD0W]

...They don't want US liability when the OLED display goes tits up 2 years after you buy the camera.

Re:Probably because...

[Moofie]

Can you give me some citations on this? I don't disbelieve you, but I'd like to see more info.

Thanks!

Re:Probably because...

[TheSHAD0W]

Don't have any, I'm afraid, and a quick net search doesn't turn it up either. OLED longevity was a big concern during development, and I never saw any "yes we solved the problem" announcements. I was being a bit facetious about the "2-year" estimate. Please note that a technology that IS pretty widespread now ALSO has longevity problems; the plasma display. It's not as pronounced as OLED might prove to be, but if you run your expensive HDTV plasma panel constantly, you might wind up using it up. Heck, LCD panels have problems too, with the back lighting.

In theory...

[Anonymous Coward]

...it should have much better battery life.

In practice, Kodak's OS will be klunky and will ruiin any joy the camera might bring.

I suspect they send their code to India.

Shame!

[Anonymous Coward]

No firewire! BOO!

Which really figures...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Kodak is the leading developer of OLEDs and owns almost all the patents on them.

Which really makes sense, since organic LEDs are fancy organic chemicals printed on a film, along with printed wiring.

Right up a film manufacturer's alley.

Only surprise (if any) is that Kodak beat Polaroid to it. Polaroid has always been about doing off-the-beaten-track tricks with films.

Re:Which really figures...

[alannon]

Maybe because Polaroid is basically tits-up right now? It's trading at about 2.2 cents/share at the moment. I don't even know if it's technically the same company as it used to be (I had thought it had gone bankrupt), since stock records only go back a few months for the company.

Re:Which really figures...

[Anonymous Coward]

Polaroid is circling the bowl at this point. Thier main thrust is to keep paddling.

Given enough time and effort, Kodak will screw the pooch on this. It's in thier heritage.

Re:U.S. Women to withhold sex until peace with Ira

[IndependentVik]

Wow, this means my chances for getting laid . . . remain completely unchanged!

order one for yourself

[rabtech]

You can order a development kit, complete with a working OLED screen at this link:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/display/AM550L.j ht ml

Re:order one for yourself

[Visaris]

Here's a link if anyone is too lazy...

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/display/AM550L.jht ml

Kodak 14n

[dsb3]

What's even more interesting is that Kodak is finally shipping their 14n (full frame dSLR). Teeny tiny P&S isn't where all the cool stuff takes place, you know ...

Are OLED displays more robust?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or do they still involve the usual flimsy layers of glass that make LCD displays such a hassle for PDA, cellphones etc?

I for one can't wait until some company releases a PDA that I can accidentely brush off my desk onto a hardwood floor without smashing the display into a million tiny little fragments.

Re:Are OLED displays more robust?

[Dylan Zimmerman]

Some company did release a PDA that does that. It's called an Apple Newton. When you went to buy an eMate, the salesperson would have you drop it from a few feet onto the store floor. In fact, I have one that survived a three story drop without any cosmetic damage, let alone functional damage. I've even heard of them making it through being hurled at concrete pillars in a parking garage. Apple made sturdy stuff. Of course, with 4 good rubber feet, you wouldn't be able to brush it off your desk unless it was on top of some paper.

Am I the only one...

[Anonymous Coward]

...who thinks arth33 works for Kodak?

I've seen one of these

[Anonymous Coward]

The display is incredibly vibrant. It's hard to describe in words, but the colors are very saturated, unlike the washed-out look of most LCD's. It almost looks like you're looking at a piece of paper, everything is so crisp, clear, and vibrant. Kudos to Kodak for getting this technology out into the marketplace. Hopefully we'll be seeing more of this in the near future!

In related news...

[TheDarkener]

Slashdot.org "unexpectedly" recieves a large sum "donation" from Kodak, Inc.

I invented the Oleo Display

[Quarters]

But it kept melting at room temperture...

Re:I invented the Oleo Display

[dsb3]

But it kept melting at room temperture...

I invented the Oreo Display ... but I kept eating it.at room temperature.

Re:I invented the Oleo Display

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this was meant to be funny... but in all seriousness, oleo does have some interesting electrical properties. The organization of the fats at extremely cold ( 77degC) temperatures can cause it to have semiconducting properties. It is actually rigid at these temperatures but obviously you can't put a lot of current through it before it starts to heat up a melt. Plus, not many people would feel comfortable keeping their flat panel oleo display cold with a bottle of liquid N2 sitting next to them.

selective demoing at its best

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember how oled's suck at blue colors, but are great at reds?

Check out that sample photo on the display. Apples. Nice, red apples. Hmmmmmmmmm.

Re:selective demoing at its best

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually something that Kodak has worked hard on, and they've come a long way. The colors you see in OLEDs are based on organic dyes. The dyes must have good saturation, but also last a long time (i.e. not "photobleach" or fade). One of the best dyes they've found for the blue is a compound called indole (it looks a lot like the purine bases in DNA, oddly--how organic is that?!) that is a very bright blue color, and is extremly stable.

The big problem with these right now, as has been pointed out many times, is that they fade over time. No one really knows the exact reason for this, but oxygen is a big culprit. They are combatting this with diffusion barriers, similar to the oxygen diffusion barriers used on plastic beer bottles, which use cobalt scavengers to trap oxygen.

Re:selective demoing at its best

[Anonymous Coward]

The bulk of plastic beer bottles (such as those manufactured by Eastman) use a clay barrier.

Re:selective demoing at its best

[Anonymous Coward]

Where the hell are you guys buying beer in plastic bottles?

OFFTOPIC

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the fuck is this modded up?

Re:Off-topic, but ..

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not using that many junk characters to throatse. Besides, throatse is not vulgar at all.
<a href="throatse.cx">throatse.cx</a>
________/_|_|_ |_|_|_|_\_______
|| 8 \ | | / 8
__||_8__/_ ___U___ \___8___
8 \ / \ / 8
______8___/ | ! | \__8____
\\ \| ! |/ //
_____/ \ | ! | / \___
\ | ! | /

WHAT IS THE DEAL WITH 128-BIT IPV6?

[Anonymous Coward]

2^64 is way more than necessary. Why the hell was the decision made to do some 128-bit scheme?

It's About Time!

[Cytos]

Jeeze I remember when I was reading about this almost over three years ago! I'm glad to see that they are finally coming into the retail market. I'll be really excited when the flexible OLED screens become a retail product.

Re:The Economics of RPGs

[Flakeloaf]

Wonderful, now I can see a high-resolution preview of a grainy underlit image 20% more clearly!

R&D guys. We are sick of CATHODES! SAVE US!

[zymano]

Come on! make a OLED 20" flat screen !!!!

MegaPixels are MegaDumb

[lucasw]

How many times have you read the screen resolution specs of a monitor or something else and multiplied the numbers together? A couple times when you were eight, right? The two smaller numbers, multiplied together, make one huge one! Impressive! Put that on the box and hide any useful information in tiny print behind five levels of links.

Perhaps I'm just ill-informed, and I can take a picture of any resolution as long as the product is less than the advertised megapixels- Here's the 1,500,000x2 panoramic shot from my hiking trip...

Re:MegaPixels are MegaDumb

[istartedi]

Yeah, but you have to hand it to the marketing genius who realized that...

...The megapixel number increases proportionally to the square of the dimensions.

...The increase from 1 megapixel to 2 megapixels sounds like twice the resolution.

...Most people are too lazy to multiply.

...Most people just want the biggest number. I mean, after all, how often have you heard a car manufacturer advertise horsepower, and make no mention of power/weight. Or they mention 0 to 60, but how often does that really matter? What I want to know is how fast can it go 50 to 70 so I can pass that granny in the Cadillac?

...The same thing that the guys who laid out Sears know: guys will find their way to the back where the tools are. People who know better will inquire beyond megapixels.

Re:MegaPixels are MegaDumb

[lucasw]

Most people are too lazy to multiply

Nobody is being too lazy to multiply because there is no reason to multiply.

But for people who are used to working with x by y, instead they have take the square root of the megapixel number for a rough estimate the resolution. The megapixel number is probably good for figuring out how much storage space an uncompressed raw image will take, but only advanced users (probably capable of multiplication) would think about that.

I think the average consumer would want to know up-front how the camera resolution corresponds to their printer or monitor. The different products' advertising would reinforce each other then, and consistency would reduce confusion and increase satisfaction. I should be able to walk into Best Buy and come out with a printer that can print a color 3x5 picture at the same resolution my new camera is capable of, and do so without finding out anything that isn't the first item listed on the packaging. If the megapixel term is here to stay, maybe that means putting that term on the printer or monitor box.

Re:MegaPixels are MegaDumb

[echo8]

This isn't all that different from the (nearly worthless) magnification numbers quoted when advertising the zoom capability that just about every compact camera now has. For example, a lens with a 35mm-equivalent range of 35-105 is advertised as being "3x." What that really means is that the difference between minimum and maximum focal length is a factor of 3. It DOES NOT mean that at maximum magnification, images will appear 3 times bigger than they are (50mm is approximately "normal," so 105 is much closer to twice that than three times that). This isn't deceptive, it's just the way these things are marketed. The marketing of (nearly worthless) digital zoom features is equally irritating. Most of those amount to nothing more than in-camera cropping. If you want to throw away pixels, you really should do that in post-processing, but marketing prevails, and unfortunately, people probably make buying decisions based on that kind of crap.

Yes, the "more megapixels is better" thing is dumb, but most people have no idea what they're actually buying, and the "mine is bigger than yours" strategy sells equipment. I "still" use a 3 MP camera. There are plenty of times that more pixels would be a benefit (so that I can crop more severely while still maintaining high enough PPI for satisfactory printing), but there are many, many factors that I think are more important than megapixels (who wants a lot of pixels in an unsharp image captured by a camera with lousy optics?).

I'd love to be able to buy a new high-end digital camera every year or so, but I'm not a pro, and I can't put that kind of money into my hobby. The bottom line is that if my system is good enough when I buy it, it's probably still good enough a ways down the road (I still use film systems that are 20+ years old...). It's sad that people allow themselves to get sucked in to the upgrade treadmill, but it's just marketing, and the vendors rely on it.

echo8

Did I mention Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well did I? Apple's new OS X is based on BSD you know, so now all your rich geeks can splurge on overpriced Mac hardware, and get a unix-like system. Isn't that great? Oh, did I mention apple.com? That's the company that's paying me to astroturf slashdot. Remember, Apple is just like Open Source, not like that nasty Micro$$oft!

life expectancy

[Anonymous Coward]

Life expectancy is around 5000 hours.

http://www.theclockmag.com/june/index.htm

It will grow, but maybe the devices can be marketted as cheap/disposable screens.

more of a question...

[marshac]

Maybe someone who knows more about OLEDs can answer this...

Why the 165 degree viewing angle? Why not 180? Since unpolarized light is being emitted, why should there be any limit less than 180?

Just curious =)

Re:more of a question...

[dcmeserve]

Why the 165 degree viewing angle? Why not 180? Since unpolarized light is being emitted, why should there be any limit less than 180?

Probably due to those buttons that stick out next to the screen, thereby blocking the view from shallow angles... :)

OTOH, how much of an image can you really see from 7.5 degrees anyways?

Re:more of a question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just try to read some text on a piece of paper from a 180 degrees angle

define please, or include reference link

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go.

Technology is useless in the hands of those that do not use it. The printing press would have been rather silly if it only ever produced letterhead.

OLED gameboy

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't mind an OLED based gameboy ...that'd be cool.

Why Organic?

[pgrote]

What's organic about them?

Re:Why Organic?

[aweraw]

taken from http://www.cknow.com/ckinfo/acro_o/oled_1.shtml A display device consisting of a series of carbon-based thin films sandwiched between two electrodes; one transparent (often glass). OLED technology holds promise because of the ability to tailor the organic molecules to vary color saturation, sensitivity, and other optical properties.

A new OLED variant, phosphorescent OLED (or PHOLED) has been developed for portable phones. This variation is a low-power variant developed by Universal Display. ;)

Re:gfasdfads

[Cytos]

Are you trying to say "fhqwhgads"? Everybody to the limit!

Re:Off-topic, but ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, selling a computer will only get you so much, and that's it. I suggest you sell yourself, repeatedly, that way you can keep on giving to help those poor starving children.

BECAUSE...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because 128 is a buzz number!

128 bit this, 128 bit that, its those marketing people, I tell you!

-BYT3 M3
Don't you WEP-128 bit encrypt your WAP? : )

I ran over a rabbit

[Anonymous Coward]

A Los Angeles National Forrest rabbit was found dead on Highway 2 this morning. There aren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to the great wild west. Truly an American icon.

(to spite your off topic post AC)

But seriously, thats too bad Mr Krout has died. Our thoughts and prayers to him and his family. As a student myself, I feel for him and his family. I realize how fragile life is, as I too might die one morning in my dorm room.

Re:LOLERZ

[Anonymous Coward]

You =/= Straight
Fag wad in your eye!

12-inches

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about all this 8-inch stuff, but I can guarantee you that I have a 12-inch one.

Ya like that $$$$exyGal???

Learn to read ;-)

[pete-classic]

It doesn't say that it is viewable from 165 degrees, it says there are "165 viewing angles".

It must be hard to position yourself at exactly one of those 165 descrete angles, though. :-(

But seriously, how do you propose to view what is, for practial purposes, a two dimensional display from 90 degrees off the normal?

IOW, it is viewable from 180 degrees, but only if you point it at something that looks like the side of a camera body. Or a vertiacal line.

-Peter

And now this.

[anethema]

There are people who have explained OLED, etc.

But even with all the explanations on how much better than LCD it is, its hard without at least a picture. Here is that picture. It was taken at the CES trade show.

WARNING: looking at this picture may make you realize how crappy your LCD monitor really is and what you have settled for:

Ta da!

It really shows the drawbacks of LCD's viewing angle and thickness because of backlighting. In the board the picture taker explains he has seen solid colour on this monitor there (demo running i guess) and the picture was perfectly even.

Anyways, thought i'd share! Enjoy.

Re:And now this.

[Mac Degger]

*pant*, *pant*...yes, that is heavy breathing. And yes, my underwear are damp now...

Wow, jesus [insert expletive of choise]... ...I WANT ONE!!! MOMMY!!! PLEASE!

Now put that on my desktop...shit, my wall! and on my pda/phone, and I can die happy having seen sci-fi come to life :)

Re:And now this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest that you try to get out of the house more often.

Re:And now this.

[ajs]

True story: I followed that link, and I'm reading this on my laptop, so I had to tilt my screen a bit to see the image clearly! ;-)

I've been following OLED for a fairly long while not. It's a really nice technology and a huge step forward. For those who want the really fast run-down, the benefits are: no back-light so contrast and display life and power usage are far better; no polarizing filters so angle of viewing is much better; and because the material produces its own light, the range of color is astoundingly rich.

Down sides: It's still a transistor-per-pixel technology; there are complexities in the manufacturing; no on yet knows how to build them reliably for large-scale displays.

We shall see....

Re:And now this.

[cuyler]

I find it odd that you'd have to tilt your laptop screen. I have a Dell Inspiron froma year ago that has a pretty shitty screen. Since I bought it Dell has supposedly introduced the UltraSharp LCD screens which have an amazing quality to them. I currently use a 15.2 inch powerbook (867Mhz) and have no problems with the screen. A horrible estimate of trying to read the text in this post - I'd say a 160 degree viewing angle - still being able to read the text.

Although I haven't seen the Dell UltraSharp LCD screen I would expect they'd be compared to the LCD screens found in Apple laptops (except the 12 inch powerbook - they put shitty ones in those from what I hear).

If OLED screens are *so* much better than my current LCD I can't wait to see what's in store.

Re:And now this.

[ivan256]

A horrible estimate of trying to read the text in this post - I'd say a 160 degree viewing angle - still being able to read the text.

Is that 160 degrees without color distortion? Being able to read it is one thing. Having all the colors look right is another. An OLED display shows colors correctly for almost any angle, were even the new dell LCDs can't do that past 90 or so degrees.

77degC or K????

[Anonymous Coward]

77degC?!?

Don't you mean 77degK as in Kelvin?

I think liquid N2 is something like 72 deg kelvin.

Wish they had it for ...

[Mabidex]

the Gameboy advance ....

now that would sell!!

Re:Wish they had it for ...

[anethema]

I dont know if you meant this to be funny or not, but it is VERY true. Damn that GBA is dark. Non-backlit lcd screen. With the low power consumption of OLED, you will have all the goodness of the battry life, tons more brightness, better viewing angle if that matters, etc. Might even make the unit a tad cheaper.

Re:Wish they had it for ...

[Anonymous Coward]

From EE Times article:

Kodak demonstrated a Gameboy handheld game console featuring an AM550L active-matrix OLED at the Society for Information Display Conference...

http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20020618S0019

Re:Wish they had it for ...

[Zed2K]

Gameboy Advance SP, comes out in 2 weeks or so. I actually got to use one this last weekend and it is everything they say it is. Weighs practically nothing, screen is awesome and comfortable to hold.

Re:Wish they had it for ...

[Anonymous Coward]

skrew that, I want it in my Atari Lynx 2005 edition...

Just think, the Lynx was backlit back in 1989...it only took Nintendo until 2003 to bring out a backlit Gameboy (Advance SE)... now THAT is progress I tell ya...

Re:R&D guys. We are sick of CATHODES! SAVE US!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry!

There is an INCREDIBLE push in the laptop/tablet market (from engineering depts.) to get lighter, thinner, brighter, more energy efficient, and faster refreshing displays.

I'm a Lead EE guy for laptops/tablets here and we REALYL REALLY want to see these OLEDs get bigger.

We're working on those R&D companies.

device/display/diode

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it a diode?

Surely you can pass the current through the polymer in any direction you wish.

Therefore isn't display/device is more suitable?

Re:device/display/diode

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it a diode? Surely you can pass the current through the polymer in any direction you wish. Therefore isn't display/device is more suitable?

"Display" or "device" isn't more suitable. Light emission from this stuff depends on the recombination of holes and electrons. Take away the N/P diode-sandwitch and you're left with a plastic resistor that could have glowed in the right circumstances.

Re:R&D guys. We are sick of CATHODES! SAVE US!

[zymano]

sounds good.

LCD's aren't great for real colors.

you could have a desktop LCD that thin, too

[g4dget]

That doesn't look all that different from the screen of a Titanium Powerbook. I know, my desktop LCD is much thicker as well, but apparently that's not an intrinsic constraint of LCDs, it's just the way desktop displays tend to be built.

Re:you could have a desktop LCD that thin, too

[jim3e8]

I believe the thickness of desktop displays is due to markedly superior backlighting. This may not always be the case, but my desktop LCD monitor (Samsung 170T) is far brighter and contrast-ier than my iBook. OLEDs don't need backlighting; hence their svelteness.

Re:you could have a desktop LCD that thin, too

[juhaz]

Thinness, maybe.

But can you see anything if you look at your neat little display at 30 degree angle like the second photo? No.

MegaPixels are Usefull

[Anonymous Coward]

Since all digital cameras have a 4:3 aspect ratio (except SLRs which use the 35mm film 3:2 aspect), you can determine the approximate vertical and horizontal resolution from just knowing the total number of pixels of the imager. It's a heck of a lot easier to refer to 3.1MP than throwing around numbers like 2048x1536.

You may notice that TV and monitor sizes are always given as a diagonal measurement because the aspect ratio is known.

Re:MegaPixels are Usefull

[pacc]

"You may notice that TV and monitor sizes are always given as a diagonal measurement because the aspect ratio is known."

Ouch, you may not have noticed Widescreen TV's. Using the same diagonal measurement you can sell these at a higher price since you get a longer diagonal for the same area compared to the old 4:3 aspect ratio. Like Megapixels this is just a marketing trick which not everybody have been cool about...

Though, I must admit that the actual number of pixels isn't really as deceptive. You could argue that a small increase in x and y resolution is advertised as 4x the change, but at least it encourages improvement.

Re: Try a useful 17 inches for size

[Anonymous Coward]

An XGA size display seems much more useful. Press release from Toshiba Matsushita Display. ...though may not be so useful in a digital camera!

mobile phones?

[Anonymous Coward]

When will we see OLED's in mobile phones?

Holy Christ!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what those specs mean, but it figures they release it the day after I fucking buy a digital camera.

Marking Warpage Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Since viewing angle is measured as the deviation from the straight on view,
a 165 degree viewing angle means only some of the people not in the image can
see the OLED.

Most likely they meant 82.5 degree viewing angle.

But marketing people are always adding meaningless numbers together in
hopes of even bigger numbers.

Re:Marking Warpage Alert

[adzoox]

No, it means almost half of 360, a semi circle. Meaning there are a few degrees +/-1-5 & +/- 175-180 that aren't viewable anyway because they are either dead on with the sides of the camera or a glare will hit the screen, or you actually viewing the side of the "diode" =( each little pixel is a tube of light) - a tube has a certain viewing angle for the hole

..but what about power consumption..?

[mikeselectricstuff]

Ok, they don't need a backlight, but as the display is emitting light, it will undoubtedly draw more than the 'raw' tft panel in an LCD - the question is how much power does the OLED+drivers take compared to the oldTFT+drivers+backlight. The review doesn't mention this, and as display power is usually the major battery-sucker on a digital cam I'm surprised this is not mentioned. The fact that this camera also has an optical viewfinder makes me suspect that maybe the power advantage isn't all that great, although even if there is no pwer advantage the improvement in display resolution and view angle is still a worthwhile advance.

It might just happen.

[MtViewGuy]

I am pretty sure that Nintendo is shopping around for a company that can make OLED displays at a reasonably price for a future variant of the Gameboy Advance.

Sure, it may end up making the unit cost US$150 instead of the current US$100, but I'm sure not a few users would love the brighter, clearer display of OLED compared to the current LCD display on the Gameboy Advance models.

yeah but ....

[esper_child]

How long till we get digital cameras that can imitate film. Why would I want to pay hundreds of dollars for a camera with a single level of color saturation and still won't let me play zone system. As soon as someone makes a camera that I can do that with out having to spend time in photoshop I will be sold. OLED is great but it doesn't solve the core problems of digital cameras.
Some one should make a digital camera that has a built in system that lets you imitate different film types, and prohaps even do black and white properly (as none do yet). However on the side of digital there are some out there with some REALLY nice IR sensitivities out there.

Re:yeah but ....

[echo8]

It depends on what you mean by "imitate film." IMO, the CCDs in most digital cameras have a dynamic range, color fidelity and exposure lattitude that's comparable to that of a slow color slide film. LIke slide films, most CCDs produce more saturated images when slightly underexposed. I personally find that the old rule of exposing for the shadows and processesing for the highlights is almost exactly reversed with digital cameras (blown-out highlights are basically gone, but I can post-process for shadow depth). You are correct that the old zone approach is only partically applicable.

I don't mind spending time in Photoshop; I used to spend lots of time in a darkroom. Post-processing and printing a digital photo is an art in and of itself, just like wet-darkroom work. I don't do digital IR photography, but I do a lot of B&W. I basically never use my camera's B&W mode. I get far superior tonality using various post-processing methods to get a black and white image. The camera's B&W mode is too lossy, too noisy and too contrasty for my taste. The only thing I ever use it for is to help previsualize something as I'm shooting it. Frankly, there's no reason NOT to record in full color. If you like the color image, wonderful, you can store it right alongside whatever B&W conversion you do after the fact.

I absolutely agree with the sentiment that digital camera vendors should be putting their efforts into things that really matter to photographic quality (like more versatile CCDs, better lenses, etc), but as I said in an earlier post, marketing rules. I could write a very similar rant about the travails involved in doing decent B&W printing on an inkjet, but that's really off-topic...

echo8

What about power consumption..? Better than TFT...

[adzoox]

From what I've read in DigiTimes - Samsung (one of the producers of OLEDs) says that they consume about 2/3 the power of a TFT - meaning they actually consume less. The organic material glows rather actually "lights up" or has to be backlit. Consider it similar to a light bulb (TFT) vs a Diode light with a mirrored surface behind it.

The other item about these displays is that they put off little to no heat and are thinner due to the lack of little lights needing to be placed behind the glass panel.

There is rumor that Apple has been developing an OLED with with it's partner Samsung for about a year now. Two of their manufacturing partners are suppliers to Kodak.

I would link, but it's hard to give links to Digitimes and Japanese articles.

What's the point

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the point of having the imaging part capable of 3.1 Mpixels and having the onboard display of 0.1 Mpixels, yes a great display, see about 27 image pixels somehow binned into one on the display. Have a vague idea of what you're taking a photo of but not if its actually any good.

Clever, and eventually usual, but now just gimmicky.

Carp! ...uhh, I mean... CRAP!

[Asprin]

The Kodak EasyShare LS633 zoom digital camera is designed for photographers who want to capture and share photos while enjoying the benefits of advanced technology.

Criminy, who writes this crap -- Kodak's marketing division? If I was going to waste my education by rearranging cliches on paper instead of doing actual writing, I'd at least have the respect for my audience to use a cliche dictionary to hunt down some really good ones. This sucks! It is actually **so** **painful** to read, I can't stop reading it. I might have to print it out and put it on my refridgerator at home. I'll be saying this to my wife and friends and greeting people in church with it while it haunts my down-home midwestern Ohio sensibilities like a crummy Britney Aguilera J'Sync song.

You know, I can live with the evil, but I can't stand the stupidity.

Re:Carp! ...uhh, I mean... CRAP!

[e-Motion]

"The Kodak EasyShare LS633 zoom digital camera is designed for photographers who want to capture and share photos while enjoying the benefits of advanced technology."

Criminy, who writes this crap -- Kodak's marketing division?

Well, they are beating around the bush, but I think that they are trying to say that the camera provides a robust, enterprise-ready turn-key camera implementation for advanced photographers, which enables them to rapidly develop and deploy high-quality, customer-oriented photographic solutions to their clients.

Or something.

Re:Carp! ...uhh, I mean... CRAP!

[eweiland]

You forgot "world-class."

Does this also explain the lack of displays?

[swb]

If Kodak owns all the patents and they don't have a vested interest in producing general purpose computer or video displays, does this explain why we keep hearing about OLED but we don't have many products? Or is the technology still not fully baked?

Microsoft has claimed trademark

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft's marketing depart says that "OLED" is actually their newly trademarked name for "Object Linking and Embedding, DUH!" It's a marketing campaign with the two unlikely goals of gussying up OLE as a cutting edge technology, and doing so by making users think they're stupid.

Kodak's (lack of) Linux Support

[suss]

Personally, i'll never buy a Kodak product again. I have a DVC-323 sitting here that basically only works well with Windows 98, because Kodak refuses to release the specs for it, even after it's been discontinued.

Screw them.

Kodak's announcement for 3/5/3

[The Spoonman]

Since sales of the LS633 Digital camera with OLED display weren't what was expected for the first two days of it's avaliability, Kodak has decided to discontinue the model and cancel any future support for the product.


I've worked there, and bought their products. This isn't too far off the mark for them. They've come out with some great products, but overpriced them at release, then discontinued within 6 months because sales weren't as expected. (Their sales expectations are usually very high.)

Q: Pros and Cons of OLED?

[4of12]

When I read about OLEDs a couple of years ago they seemed to offer brilliant displays compared to competing technologies, such as LCDs. I don't know how the cd/cm^2 compare quantitatively, though.

But, IIRC, there was some mention of problems having to do with the lifetimes of the displays, blue colors, over a year.

Have all of the problems with OLEDs been overcome? Will the viewfinder look as nice 5 years from now?

I invented the Olestra Display

[Anonymous Coward]

But it caused rectal bleeding at room temperature...

I want a passive screen...

[dargaud]

What I want is passive screen technology. I'm tired of having a light bulb shining in my face, be it LCD, LEDs or CRT. I want something passive, that only reflects light. Yes it won't work in the dark, but so does a book. It'll be a lot more relaxing fo the eyes.

I know there's been some research on that (ePaper ?) but what's the current state of it ?

From where do you measure that angle?

[golo]

I don't know how you're measuring this. I would measure it from an axis perpendicular to the screen plane (right in front = 0 degrees). so NO screen can be seen at angels above 90 degrees. (an if you took one of the other 2 axis 90 degrees would be straigh in front so that doesn't make sense either)

Re:From where do you measure that angle?

[ivan256]

90 degrees is the range, not the offset. That means you would be able to see it correctly from 45 degrees off center in either direction. 180 degrees would be the optimal viewing range.

At least that's how display manufacutrers talk about it.

Expect colors to look like crap for everyone else

[kobotronic]

...when we start to see images on the net that was calibrated to look nice within the silly intense gamut of a OLED screen: it'll prolly look like washed out puke on all ordinary screens. :)

That makes more sense

[golo]

That makes more sense... Thanks

LCDs less efficient because of polarizers

[Anonymous Coward]

LCD displays employ polarizers and color filters in the light path. this cuts light transmission by something like 50%. OLEDs require neither. I cannot say how efficient they are relative to a flourescent backlight, but that flourescent backlight has to output twice as much light as an OLED to achieve similar luminance.

strength is important ...

[timothy]

Even if an OLED screen could be as thin as the one pictured, I would not begrudge the designers an extra inch of thickness if if made the display much more robust ... things get dropped / twisted / untentionally torqued, etc.

I'd like a display that could be dropped a bit and still work happily :)

timothy

Re:strength is important ...

[anethema]

lcuky you can just roll up an oled display with no adverse effects
heheh

Cobalt on beer bottles?

[tjstork]

I had no idea they put cobalt on beer bottles. I guess I'll have to keep the beer away from my tabletop cold fusion device, lest a twelve pack and an accident spell the end of the world.

I saw OLED displays at SID 2002 in Boston

[Anonymous Coward]

In particular, a Sony display that was perhaps 1200 x 900, (rough guess; have forgotten). I'd be willing to bet that they were split between exhibiting it, and not doing so. It was out of the way; some/many attendees might well have missed it.

For: It was just gorgeous. Delightful. Plenty of saturation where appropriate, and very good brightness. For colors, think, for instance, red and green LED traffic lights; visually pure and vivid. Lots of pixels too. You might compare it to an excellent Kodachrome slide, rear-projected, but I would say possibly even better. Spectacularly thin; maybe 1 mm?

Against: Quite a few dead (= black) pixels. However, it was a very early one, more than likely a lab prototype, and any intelligent individual would overlook that. I was so impressed that I really didn't care about the bad pixels; they really didn't distract me.

Enby in Waltham