Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chi Mei Announces 20" Active Matrix OLED Display

Posted by timothy on from the fall-prices-fall dept.

deglr6328 writes "The final barriers to OLED commercialization have been falling fast lately with Kodak's first product shipping soon, Samsung demoing a 256 color OLED wristwatch phone and now Chi Mei Optoelectronics announcing a 20 inch full color active matrix OLED display. The new display was made possible by a breakthrough using amorphous silicon for the TFT. The new technique is said to allow conventional TFT LCD manufacturers to convert their facilities over to OLED with relative ease."

173 comments

  1. if it's organic.... by very · · Score: 4, Funny

    If it's organic, would it decay in time?

    1. Re:if it's organic.... by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      If it's organic, would it decay in time?

      As much as any other plastic component in your computer. Plastics are made from organic materials (oil = dead organic matter). OLEDS are basicly plastic LEDs.

    2. Re:if it's organic.... by Paul+Johnson · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Good question. Reading between the lines of the Cambridge Display Technology web site, it seems that colour purity and stability have been the big stumbling blocks so far. CDT have demoed small displays in the past, but I don't know how stable they were.

      Polymers tend to degrade with exposure to light, especially UV. In a display UV is not generally a problem but obviously light in general is.

      Paul.

      --
      You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
    3. Re:if it's organic.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's OK, you hardly notice the smell.

    4. Re:if it's organic.... by zenyu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      CDT have demoed small displays in the past, but I don't know how stable they were.

      I talked with someone working with them 2 years ago (at IBM). At that point they only lasted a few days in a darkened labs... but a lot of progress could have been made since then. They had a lot of promise even then though, low power & high-res, though they seem to have abandoned high-res here. Perhaps so they "live" longer? It could just be a yield thing though... (Or they are/were aiming for HDTV?)

    5. Re:if it's organic.... by Ella+the+Cat · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't buy one until I was sure that OLED doesn't suffer from the equivalent of screen burn on old CRTs. If the light output as a function of coltage/current changes over time for OLED, flat regions of colour would show ghostly afterimages. So if you switch to full screen video you'd get a ghostly desktop pager or whatever.

    6. Re:if it's organic.... by _pruegel_ · · Score: 1

      That's not as funny as it sounds. Those displays really decay in time and even worse, the aging of the three colors is not the same. That was mentioned here.

    7. Re:if it's organic.... by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1, Funny

      Oh my God! You mean... just like CRTs??

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
  2. Organic LED's? by Phoenixhunter · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hope we don't have to water them to make sure your screen doesn't turn yellow over time...

    1. Re:Organic LED's? by m1chael · · Score: 2, Funny

      can you buy two and breed them?

      --
      I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
    2. Re:Organic LED's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hope we don't have to water them to make sure your screen doesn't turn yellow over time...


      No, you silly. That's the wrong kind of Organic. Clearly what they mean is that no pesticides were used in the production of these displays!

  3. fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    nt

  4. Will they take... by smaug195 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Kidneys as forms of payment? :-/

    Seriously how long before this technology becomes affordable?

    1. Re:Will they take... by Jason1729 · · Score: 0, Funny

      Nah, a kidney is only worth a few grand. These will be much more expensive for a while. :)

      Jason
      ProfQuotes

    2. Re:Will they take... by DarkHelmet · · Score: 0
      I don't have any children...

      But I'd be willing to go out, have sex, and give away my firstborn for one of these.

      --
      /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    3. Re:Will they take... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real question is: How does this technology help the war on terrorism/Iraq aka the only working form of diplomacy?

    4. Re:Will they take... by Grayraven · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dark Helmet, eh?
      I bet you'd be willing to go out, have sex and give away your firstborn just for the sex. ;-)

      --
      "Source... The Final Frontier" -- keepersoflists.org
    5. Re:Will they take... by Phoenixhunter · · Score: 1

      it doesn't?

  5. I wonder if they've solved... by tuxlove · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...the problem with the blue LED fading over a few years of use? That would be a showstopper for me, unless these units are so cheap that I can buy a new one every 6-12 months without feeling the pain.

    1. Re:I wonder if they've solved... by apdt · · Score: 1

      It all depends what you're using them to view.
      For some things, the blue's not a problem, as long as the red end of the spectrum's working fine ;-)

      --
      I lay awake last night wondering where the sun had gone, then it dawned on me.
    2. Re:I wonder if they've solved... by Seclusion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I also wonder about defects in general. If OLED's will be better then 99.99% defect free LCD's(which would be pretty good if we weren't talking about millions of pixels).

    3. Re:I wonder if they've solved... by tuxlove · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I also wonder about defects in general. If OLED's will be better then 99.99% defect free LCD's(which would be pretty good if we weren't talking about millions of pixels).

      I saw a 15" OLED screen made by Samsung at CES, and it was beautiful. I will not buy another screen until I can get an OLED one for a decent price. Utterly amazing. But only if the manufacturing process is near-perfect. The 15" screen had at least two bad pixels, and it only takes one to ruin the screen. Though they were only a few out of a million or two, it was very distracting.

    4. Re:I wonder if they've solved... by gollangana · · Score: 4, Informative

      LCDs have defects due to the failure of the Thin Film Transistors that control the state of individual pixels. Given that OLED displays will be using identical TFTs there should be a similar (or worse, due to failure of the OLEds themselves) rate of defects. However - when a TFT fails in an LCD it gives a light point, wheras when one fails in an OLED display it will give a dark point, which is much less annoying.

    5. Re:I wonder if they've solved... by unitron · · Score: 2, Funny

      You aren't supposed to be watching blue movies anyway :-)

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    6. Re:I wonder if they've solved... by fobbman · · Score: 1

      If they do decay, and they're so inexpensive that they are disposable, how recyclable are they? We've got landfills full of dead computer parts already and don't need to encourage it.

    7. Re:I wonder if they've solved... by silverhalide · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dunno, but if you're still using Windows 9x/ME, your BSODs are gonna wear out those blue LEDs REAL quick...

  6. Ahahaha...first post :P by madmarcel · · Score: -1, Troll

    "It has WXGA resolution (1280 x 768 pixels)"

    That is pretty pathetic!

    The new Dell laptops can do 1600x1200!

    Surely they could come up with something better than that (no, I did not read the *entire* article ;)

    1. Re:Ahahaha...first post :P by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>That is pretty pathetic!

      The new Dell laptops can do 1600x1200!

      what's the point of 1600x1200 on a 15 inch screen? Your only going to run it at 800x600 unless you want to be straining your eyes all the time. at most someone might run it at 1024x768.

      I ran my 17 inch monitor at 1024 like most people. Now I have a 21 and run it at 1600x1200, i'm thinking of lowering it because it's almost to small.

    2. Re:Ahahaha...first post :P by Osty · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I ran my 17 inch monitor at 1024 like most people.

      Most people I know run their 17" monitors at 1280x1024, not 1024x768. 1024x768 is fine for a 15" monitor, but it's too damn big on anything larger. On 19" or up (assuming a good 19", anyway), 1600x1200 is the way to go.


      what's the point of 1600x1200 on a 15 inch screen? Your only going to run it at 800x600 unless you want to be straining your eyes all the time. at most someone might run it at 1024x768. ... Now I have a 21 and run it at 1600x1200, i'm thinking of lowering it because it's almost to small.

      If you have eyesight problems, you may want to mention that. Yes, 1600x1200 seems small when you first start using it, but it grows on you. Give it time, and so long as you don't have sight issues (mild glasses or contacts don't count), you'll soon love the extra screen real estate. My laptop can only do 1280x1024 (couldn't justify the extra cost for a UXGA screen), and it's pretty annoying to go from my desktop 19" or 21" CRTs at 1600x1200 to the 16" LCD at 1280x1024. My roommate has a Toshiba laptop with a 15" UXGA screen, and it's surprisingly useable at 1600x1200. 1280x1024 is good enough for a second monitor on a dual-head machine, but not for normal work.

    3. Re:Ahahaha...first post :P by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 1

      my vision is fine. Also i like the space of 1600x1200 it's just the matter that for most people it's way to damn small. This is why for windows XP, maybe 2k (i just don't know about it) MS re-adjusted the size of things so people could use a 17" at 1024x786 comfortably, before then it made things to small. Most people i know have 15 or 17 inch monitors, all of them run at 800x600 or 1024x768. I'm sure some people run 17's at higher, but they are very much a minority.

    4. Re:Ahahaha...first post :P by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I see it as a good thing in the long run. But, OSes need to be set to double the size of everything within the OS. So that it actually uses the extra pixels to smooth things out, add detail.

      I see Apple's OS X as the best option for these kind of insane resolutions, with its built-in Display PostScript (a.k.a. Quartz) handling everything. It should be a simple matter to just say that you want, say, 1" tall icons, no matter what dpi the screen has. Or that your 10 point font should be equal in size to a printer's 10 point font. 'points' are based on old physical typesetting sizes, and are based on a 72dpi base. Dell's monstrous 1920x1200 resolution more than doubles that at 147dpi. Note that the Sony Picturebook, with it's 8.9" 1280x600 display tops that at 159dpi, and their U-series ultra-micro notebooks even go beyond that at a whopping 200dpi! For reference, a 17" CRT (16" viewable) at 1024x768 has a 'measly' 80dpi. (Pumping it to 1280x960 makes it go to 100dpi. And if you run that 'bastard' resolution of 1280x1024 (a 5:4 resolution on a 4:3 screen,) you end up with non-square pixels at 100dpi horitontally, and 107dpi vertically. Note that 1280x1024 LCD screens use square pixels, so they are have a slightly different aspect ratio than most other CRTs and LCDs.)

      Note that I have the original PictureBook, which has the same size screen as the current models, only with a slightly lower resolution, which comes in at 127dpi. I find it perfectly readable with WinXP's ClearType. (Yes, I'm torturing a Pentium MMX/266 with 64MB of RAM by installing XP on it...)

      --
      Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
      The purpose of that site was not known.
    5. Re:Ahahaha...first post :P by bgog · · Score: 1

      You don't havn't seen the 15" Dell screen have you. I don't have any problem with eye strain like I do on my CRT at 1600x1200. The LCD has such a great distinction between pixels that you get an incredibly sharp image compared to a CRT at that res. Also you can use slightly larger fonts and still get much of the benefit of that resolution. I was so impressed at finally being able to stomach 1600x1200 on my dell laptop that I went and bought an LCD for my desktop.

    6. Re:Ahahaha...first post :P by mixmasta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, you say that because you don't understand (like most people) that greater resolution _improves_ readability, if you know how to configure things correctly.

      Also, running an LCD on a it's non-native resolution (800x600) is a great way to turn a $2000 monitor into something that looks worse than a $100 vga crt they sold about 10 years ago.

      This is thanks to that blurry scaling they use these days. Kind of like buying a corvette and never taking it out of first gear.

      If you're proud of that, you go guy!

      --
      #6495ED - cornflower blue
    7. Re:Ahahaha...first post :P by g4dget · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The new Dell laptops can do 1600x1200! what's the point of 1600x1200 on a 15 inch screen?

      The point is that scalable fonts finally end up looking halfway decent. Displaying scalable fonts on a 75dpi or 100dpi screen, with hinting and everything else, is at best a mediocre compromise.

    8. Re:Ahahaha...first post :P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      800 x 600 goes into 1600 x 1200 evenly. each virtual 800x600 pixel will take up 4 physical pixels on the 1600x1200 screen, with no scaling artifacts.

      -the more you know-

    9. Re:Ahahaha...first post :P by jsoderba · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You realise that you can change the dpi setting of your display, don't you?

      My Windows box runs at 1280x960 with 120 dpi fonts. This makes the fonts much easier on the eyes (I'm a bit anal about typography) and lets you fit many more icons and toolbars onto the screen.

      It does cause problem with a few poorly tested programs who don't lay out their controls in a resolution independent way, but I've found most such programs lacking in other ways as well.

    10. Re:Ahahaha...first post :P by SpikeSpegiel · · Score: 1

      I have a brand new dell laptop. I run it at 1600*1200. It is very crisp and clear, so good for reading slashdot, checking email, and chatting with people all visible at the same time :)

    11. Re:Ahahaha...first post :P by 56ksucks · · Score: 1

      (Yes, I'm torturing a Pentium MMX/266 with 64MB of RAM by installing XP on it...)

      Looks like you're torturing yourself waiting for that slow machine to run XP!
      --

      ---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"

    12. Re:Ahahaha...first post :P by Herbmaster · · Score: 1

      I see Apple's OS X as the best option for these kind of insane resolutions, with its built-in Display PostScript (a.k.a. Quartz) handling everything.

      FWIW, Quartz is a PDF engine. Display PostScript is a remnant from the days of Rhapsody.

      But more relevantly, MacOS X makes essentially no effort to ever scale display resolution to actual monitor resolution in dpi. I think this is a major failing. I think MacOS X basically assumes my monitor is displaying 72 dpi, even though my CRT is closer to (and would be much easier to read if it used) ~105 dpi.

      --
      I'm not a smorgasbord.
    13. Re:Ahahaha...first post :P by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 1

      You see, I consider it more a torture of the innocent notebook. It's actually pretty snappy. (I have all the eye candy, except ClearType, turned off.) I find that aside from startup time, it's at least as fast as Win98 (which it came with,) and seems faster than Win98 regularly.

      --
      Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
      The purpose of that site was not known.
    14. Re:Ahahaha...first post :P by smithmc · · Score: 1

      what's the point of 1600x1200 on a 15 inch screen?

      I've got one of these, and I'll tell you what the point is. With 133 dpi resolution, coupled with ClearType, on-screen text looks almost like looking at a printed page. It's effing gorgeous. No jaggies, no individual pixels - just seamless, smooth text. I'll never be happy with a mere XGA or 1280x1024 display again.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    15. Re:Ahahaha...first post :P by AssFace · · Score: 1

      most people?

      just because you run it at a resolution XYZ, that doesn't mean "most people" run it at that.

      90% of the designers I know run at 1600x1200, and even more programmers I know run at that.

      I run my laptop at 1400xsomething - and I would run higher if the screen could do it.

      Just because you have bad eyes and therefore can't comprehend that there is a real need/desire for more real estate doesn't mean that you can just shrug off other users.

      I don't assume that everyone runs at 1600x1200 or higher - but you assume that anyone that runs higher than you will strain their eyes...
      I suppose there isn't much use in me writing this since it looks like a bunch of other people replied to this and also mentioned you were a dipshit.

      --

      There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
  7. Prices? by rastachops · · Score: 2, Informative

    Will this mean cheaper displays for the consumer or are they going to be sky high like LCDs were for a few years?

    Unless they are much greater than LCDs in some respect, I don't know why the regular Joe Bloggs would want to upgrade from a CRT.

    1. Re:Prices? by gollangana · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They are better than LCDs. Main reasons are (IMO) 1: they use less energy - backlit LC displays have to have a powerful backlight on constantly - even though only a small proportion of this light makes it through the LC layer. OLEDs are only lit when they need to be viewed. Energy consumption is a major concern in most mobile devices. 2: they can be viewed from any angle (up to 360 degrees if they are sandwiched between 2 layers of amorphorous silicon) - something LCDs still haven't got to grips with.

    2. Re:Prices? by packeteer · · Score: 4, Informative

      The specs are indeed impressive. A 20 inch display running at 25 watts is wonderful. Not only are these going to be good for desktops but think about laptop uses. Longer battery life, better viewing angle for that presentation at the office, and most importantly a bright and vivid display that wont make your eyes hurt like some LCD's. Also in a few years these things will of course be cheaper but better to. These are simply prototypes and first generation models. Soon they will draw LESS energy and be brighter, lighter, cheaper, and probably cool (maybe not possible). So im not buying one yet (living off a student's income... ie slim to nil) but i can see a time where these things are too good to NOT buy. Whoever is selling these is going to make a fortune because as the old saying goes i predict they will almost sell themselves.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    3. Re:Prices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont think laptop, think Tablet PC.

      This is the next carry PC.

    4. Re:Prices? by Myalex · · Score: 1

      What cost savings (in regard to energy consumption) could be expected over the life of a typical LCD vs OLED vs traditional monitor. I'd love to be able to justify one of these or even an LCD.

    5. Re:Prices? by King+Babar · · Score: 1
      The specs are indeed impressive. A 20 inch display running at 25 watts is wonderful. Not only are these going to be good for desktops but think about laptop uses.

      *Thank you* for pointing out that the real bonus here is the low power draw. While I am sure that every kind of computing device will continue to show increased performance in a raw sense, there are other things that are rapidly going to become more important.

      1. How long is this thing going to run on batteries?
      2. How quiet is this device?
      3. How small or light can I make it?

      So, my wife has an iBook and I have an iBook made just one year later. Mine is quieter, lighter, smaller, and runs longer on a charge. It's also somewhat faster, but this is hardly the first thing you would notice. I think I can, for the first time, claim that if it were only twice as fast as it is, I would never care if it got any faster. Any faster than that, and it's just as reasonable to go to some cycle-serving behemoth kept in its own room, possibly hundreds of miles away. The computer I want to use up close and personal only has to provide the ultimate in user interfaces and enough storage to keep around the stuff that I really don't want to reach out to the network for. We are getting so close, and stuff like low-power ultra-bright OLED screens are getting us even closer.

      --

      Babar

    6. Re:Prices? by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Unless they are much greater than LCDs in some respect, I don't know why the regular Joe Bloggs would want to upgrade from a CRT.

      Black levels should be better. LCDs always have some bleedthrough of the backlight. Also, they may have a better "refresh" rate, or whatever the equivalent is for such a device.

      It sounds like the process should also allow for lower manufacturing costs, which should translate into lower prices in the long run.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    7. Re:Prices? by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      You forget some other plus points (don't blame you: there are so many :) ): less weight and thinner. This means slimmer and lighter laptops and PDA's :)

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  8. curiously, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    what kind of electromagnetic emissions do these things put out? Supposedly the previous generation of LCDs were meant to be low-emissional, but I've noticed by carefully looking at the specs that many of them fail standards which CRTs typically pass.

    1. Re:curiously, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They put out... visible light! Everything else is really irrelevant.

    2. Re:curiously, by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      "Everything else is really irrelevant"

      Tell that to the people of Hiroshima.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
  9. SuperSweet by Akai · · Score: 1

    Imagine a cinema screen done with OLED, no need for digital projection, it's be a digital screen.

    --
    Please send all UCE to scally@devolution.com so I can f
    1. Re:SuperSweet by m1chael · · Score: 0

      and then imagine this cinema screen in your house!

      --
      I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
    2. Re:SuperSweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually the biggest issue with Digital Movie Screens would be not the screen istelf but the actual resolution (and therefore the bandwidth) required to fill such a screen with a high quality image. You would need a massive transfer rate between your media and the screen. I do not believe this would be feasable with current or near term (2-5 years) technologies.

    3. Re:SuperSweet by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      Thats what interpolation and stuff is for.

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    4. Re:SuperSweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're kidding, right? Movies are only 24fps, and are not much higher resolution than the screen being discussed here. Keep in mind that a movie screen would only need a few DPI. I think the only problem is manufacturing such a huge (i.e. 50 foot) piece of OLED screen.

  10. Organic?? by Flounder · · Score: 4, Funny
    This monitor has been produced without using any pesticides.

    Or, it's ch-ch-ch-CHIA!

    --

    No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova

    1. Re:Organic?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      no, it means it feels REALLY good when you use the display.

      No wait, that's ORGASMIC light-emitting diodes, me bad...

  11. Resolution? by Osty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From the announcement, it seems like this 20" display can only do 1280x768. I'm sorry, but at 20", it better be able to do better than that. If it won't do at least 1600x1200 (or I guess 1600x960, with that aspect ratio), I'm not interested. My 19" CRT comfortably does 1600x1200, so any LCD or OLED display would have to do at least that for me to consider upgrading.

    1. Re:Resolution? by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, it is only the first generation, I'm pretty sure the first generation of LCDs wasn't exactly stunning in comparison to CRTs of the time. There were problems with clor depth, refresh, brightness, etc, not to mention sky high prices.

      Wait a few generations, I'm sure they'll become competetive.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    2. Re:Resolution? by ketamine-bp · · Score: 2, Informative

      For large screens with OLED, I'll assume it pretty hard to be something for Full-screen video or showing purpose, which is located far, far (i.e. >30cm) away from the viewer, hence the resolution need not be that big.

      FYI, a typical TV screen has much less resolution (i.e. around 640x480 - don't bitch me about the 525 lines bit - I know it and Please note that there is something called Vertical blanking interval, google it if you dare.) and I'm very, very happy with it.

      I think most of the guys/gals/geeks/etc. will be happy with that big a screen with that quite-a-bit of resolution for gaming/movie/pr0n[sic] purposes.

    3. Re:Resolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      A "1st Generation" LCD was intended as a high-end product. I have one here -- 21", 1600x1200, image quality very decent, original list was $8500 or so.

      OLED, on the other hand is intended to be cheap crap. Think CRTs -- the low end models had problems with color depth, refresh, brightness, etc for only about 20 years.

    4. Re:Resolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      1) TV in america (or more specificaly NTSC) is 640x480. PAL is 832x624 (625 actually, but 1 line is used for Teletext).
      2) Some of us, (including me) would actually like to do some work on our computers, now for me that means at least a resolution of 1600x1200 (if not 1920x1440).

      Bob

    5. Re:Resolution? by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      What kind of work do you do? I can see a need for high-res for graphic artists but most of us don't need that much for something as small as 20". 1280x768 is fine for word processing, web browsing, coding, etc.

      A good many people I know (clients) end up setting their resolution to 800x600 or 640x480 because it's easier for them to see and they don't know how to resize fonts and other screen elements. I find the machines painful to work on but it works for what they need.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    6. Re:Resolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For graphics you atleaste want 1600x1200, otherwise it get's pretty painfull. More would be even nicer
      for retouching hi-res images.

      Most OS (except good'ol Beos) look terrible in less than 1280x1024, all the icons are so bizarelly big and menus etc use awfull lots of screen space for no reason.

      Coding, I always want to do my coding in 1600x1200 to, otherwise it too gets messy on the screen. Even worse when debugging...

    7. Re:Resolution? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      who modded this crap as informative? "NTSC" most certainly is NOT 640x480 (active picture is 720x486) just as "PAL" is NOT 832x624 (active picture is 720 (EBU recommends blanking to 702) x576) And, yes, NTSC DOES have a full 525 transmitted lines just as PAL has 625 (and more than one is used for Teletext, numbnuts).

      Where the fuck are you getting this misinformation?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    8. Re:Resolution? by s0m3body · · Score: 1

      do you remember first generation of CRT ?

    9. Re:Resolution? by jcenters · · Score: 4, Funny
      I'm pretty sure the first generation of LCDs wasn't exactly stunning in comparison to CRTs of the time. There were problems with clor depth, refresh, brightness, etc

      Well, all new display technologies have a problem with clor depth. That's just a given.

      Remember the first laptops? The clor to brigess ratio was terrible, and frankly, the clors were as deep as a strand of dental floss.

      When I got mine (A Compuq Bust-A-Gut 2000), the clors were so thin that it hurt my eyes. I angrily called the Compuq tech support line. They sent me a "Clor Inflation Pump", which was a temporary solution, at best.

      But nowadays, LCD technology has advanced by leaps and bounds (Though still not appropriate for a desktop, IMHO). My new Powerbook has a crisp, sharp display, and MY clors are as deep as Socrates. :-)

      --

      vi ~/.emacs

    10. Re:Resolution? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      I thought PAL was 786x576? Or Am I getting confused between square pixels or DVPAL etc?

    11. Re:Resolution? by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah, I need to preview :)

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    12. Re:Resolution? by ketamine-bp · · Score: 1

      Alan was right.
      PAL interlaced = 720*576
      NTSC interlaced = 720*480
      (and some other may use 704*576,544*576, etc.)

      This is a total piece of crap.

    13. Re:Resolution? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      well, "PAL" doesn't really have a defined raster size as such, as it's the analogue composite video standard. However, the convention as used since theintroduction of D1 as a production format, and as adhered to by the subsequent D2, D3, DigiBeta, DV, DVCAM, DVCPro, Digital-S, Beta SX, IMX et al formats is to use the 720x576 raster size as the active picture. Weirdly, D3 also had a 916x576 high resolution mode which was inspired by the BBC, possibly having something to do with future widescreen origination - all irrelevant now as D3 has died due to DigiBeta's superior performance and economies of scale. 720x576 is - of course - a non-square pixel format and is used for both 4:3 and 16:9 ratio pictures currently.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    14. Re:Resolution? by BigBadBri · · Score: 2, Funny
      Goddamn fancy CRT's - until they can do a proper orange text on black, I'm sticking with my dumb terminal.

      Hell, it took me years to stop missing the sound of the teletype!

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
    15. Re:Resolution? by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I don't have any icons or cruft like that. I am using HackedBox as my WM on my Linux system. Gave up KDE for Gnome a couple years ago. Gnome 2 pissed me off too so I switched to HackedBox. So far is working really well and has very little screen space wasted.

      I'm happy with anything 800x600 or bigger for coding. I do most of it in a single term window with multiple tabs. :)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    16. Re:Resolution? by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Hehe...LCD still doesn't hold up to CRT :)

      Oh, and jcenters...eat my sig. ;p

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    17. Re:Resolution? by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Just talk for yourself.

      I like my 1600x1200 just fine for word processing, web browsing, coding, etc.

      I have to use 800x600 14" for few days some times and all I can say that it's a PAIN to have so little space when you've used to having four times the area. It'd be even worse on a 20" screen, there's just so much wasted real-estate.

  12. Chi Mei Optoelectronics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    5000 employees - pretty big.

  13. war poem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Mindless zombies run around
    Pretending to ignore those on the ground
    Atrocities of war cascade down
    And frolic where once great men abound

    Implacable future we might face
    As much as wish were erased
    Those in power might wish to deface
    What might have been just in case?

    Do not confuse news and truth
    For those of us who do not sleuth
    Be wary of what you might hear
    People are always out to smear

    Silence will not forever loom
    As much as unrighteous would assume
    The truth shall not be always be entombed
    In the end it will be exhumed

  14. What about the cost? by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The new technique is said to allow conventional TFT LCD manufacturers to convert their facilities over to OLED with relative ease

    The real question is, will this mean affordable big screens?

    I saw a flatscreen LCD monitor in CompUSA the other day going for $2000. Sure it looked great, but $2000 is wacko. $200 maybe, but not $2000.

    --
    The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    1. Re:What about the cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      flatscreen LCD

      Isn't that redundant? There's no reason to curve an LCD display.

    2. Re:What about the cost? by Surak · · Score: 1

      I saw a flatscreen LCD monitor in CompUSA the other day going for $2000. Sure it looked great, but $2000 is wacko. $200 maybe, but not $2000.

      There are plenty of 17" LCDs in the sub $500 range. Remember that a 17" flatpanel is equivalent in viewable area to a 19" CRT. People often think 17" LCD=17" CRT and should be comparable in price, but 17" LCD is closer in price to 19" CRT for good reason.

      --
      My journal has hot /. gossip.
    3. Re:What about the cost? by jim3e8 · · Score: 1

      If you saw an LCD monitor for $2000, it was probably Apple's 23" Cinema Display. Keep in mind that this is a comparatively high-end product and most LCDs are much less expensive (even $200 for real low-end stuff), as mentioned by another poster. Also note that until recently, the Apple monitor was around $3300 or so, so prices are definitely going down.

      Basically, you can't judge the whole spectrum of something by the most pricey one, monitors included.

    4. Re:What about the cost? by PCBman! · · Score: 1

      In terms of native resolution, a 17" LCD IS equivalent to a 17" CRT. If that 17" LCD had a native resolution of 1600x1200 and priced the same as my favorite Hitachi and Mitsubishi CRT's I might actually think of buying one, but until that time, I'll spend my money elsewhere.

      --
      So, when's lunch?
    5. Re:What about the cost? by Surak · · Score: 1

      1024x768 is generally the most-used resolution on 17" CRTs, while 1280x1024 is most often used on 19" CRTs. 1600x1200 really should only be used on 20" or higher CRTs. 17" LCDs have a native resolution of 1280x1024. Have you USED 1600x1200 on a 17" or 19" monitor? And are you blind yet?

      --
      My journal has hot /. gossip.
    6. Re:What about the cost? by PCBman! · · Score: 1

      Actually 1600x1200 is the resolution I try to stick to on my Hitachi 751. With a better video card, it would be my ONLY resolution--'cept for bootup of course.

      At better then 21", I'd want 2048x1536 (Eizo/Nanao F980 preferably).

      --
      So, when's lunch?
  15. size isn't everything by tp9674 · · Score: 3, Funny
    From the caption

    'World's largest 20" OLED full color display'

    I'm I the only one that thinks 'world's smallest 20" display' would be more impressive"

    1. Re:size isn't everything by ketamine-bp · · Score: 2, Funny

      Please kindly note that:

      - 20" is not larger than 21" even for very large values of 20".
      - 20" is not smaller than 19" even for very small values of 19".

      Well.

    2. Re:size isn't everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought you meant 20" is not smaller than 19" even for very small values of 20".

    3. Re:size isn't everything by the_consumer · · Score: 2, Funny

      - 20" is not smaller than 19" even for very small values of 19".
      I think maybe you climb outta that k-hole, friend ;)

      --
      "If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
  16. Why this is important. by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, the early ones will be expensive. But, the whole point of this technology is that it is cheaper than LCD. Once the initial R&D has been paid for, they will be cheap. Plus, take a look at those specs. 300 Cd/m^2 at 25W. The Apple 20" Cinema Display only has 230 Cd/m^2, and it uses over twice as much power, 60W! These are a big deal because they use even less energy than an LCD, and they'll be easier to manufacture. (LCD's are actually easier to manufacture than CRTs, but economies of scale kick in, that's why CRTs are so much cheaper. Plus LCDs are prone to pixel failure, which OLED displays supposedly aren't.)

    --
    Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
    The purpose of that site was not known.
    1. Re: Why this is important. by ketamine-bp · · Score: 1

      Well, since there are no backlight, and that they are simpler to manufacture doesn't grant them their success now.

      Actually, the key to win the their very fast switching times and the proven-technology that makes LED (well, the ye olde LED.)

      Hmm.. I still recall when I took my semiconductor physics lecture.. "Any diode can be light-emitting, ... once."

    2. Re:Why this is important. by ndogg · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're not making it easier for me to justify my new LCD that I bought that cost me an arm and a leg. It's really hard to type and get around these days.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    3. Re:Why this is important. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes, the early ones will be expensive. But, the whole point of this technology is that it is cheaper than LCD. Once the initial R&D has been paid for, they will be cheap


      Or, more likely, once the initial R&D has been paid for, they are going to have even larger profit margins than before...
    4. Re:Why this is important. by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Compitition my friend, it solves a lot price problems in a free market. CRT monitors are cheap now beacuse LCDs are considered better so people will pay more for them. CRT manufactures know they have a more expensive product, so they make it better and cheaper. (Flat screens on a CRT were a dream until LCDs became common. 17 inch monitors for 80 bucks)

      Sure they will charge more at the start, because people are willing to pay for it. Once the people with too much money are unwilling to pay for all expensive OLCDs they can make, the price will come down to get a bigger market share. Of course eventially they will reach the point where the market it saterated and they can't sell more than they make. By that time thought LCDs (more expensive to manufacture and not as good) will be non-existant, and CRTs will be limited to the few artists that can tell the difference in colors. (Assuming OLCDs are like CRTs and don't give perfect color, I don't know)

    5. Re:Why this is important. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Further than this should be your _maximum_ power consumption for an OLED display. With the majority of pictures (especially TV type screens) a large area of the monitor will be dark, and hence in these areas the OLEDs will not be on, and will not be drawing power.

      This is another stumbling block with comparing lifetimes of LCD type screens with OLED-types as the operating time of an LCD screen tends to be based on the backlight while an LCD screen is dependant on what is actually shown on the screen. For example PDAs will be much lower lifetime and higher power consumption per unit area than a TV screen with computer monitors, cameras and mobile phones filling out the middle-grounds

    6. Re:Why this is important. by quintessent · · Score: 1

      Yes, but your LCD will last a long time. OLED's have a much shorter life.

      --
      Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
  17. I use lot's of consoles by John_Renne · · Score: 1

    I can't imagine ever running at 800x600 again. My 15" TFT runs at 1024x768 because it doesn't allow me to run in a higher resolution. My 17" CRT on the other hand is running at 1280x1024. I just like to have lots of different windows opened at the same time

    --
    /(bb|[^b]{2})/
    1. Re:I use lot's of consoles by aonaran · · Score: 1

      The lowest resolution I use is 1162x864 (the 17" I have at work only goes that high) My computer at home is 1280x1024 on a 17" ... and I REALLY want more resolution. I've been looking at LCDs but unless I go to 20" or buy an older SGI LCD I can't get 1600 :(

      I refuse to buy a monitor that consumes more power than the one I alerady have, so a larger CRT is not an answer (besides I'm running out of desk space) I do hope that OLED will be able to provide me with the screen real estate I want by the end of the year. I'd even pay more for it to help bring this new low power tech into the mainstream.

  18. Let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    The worst terrorist attack in recorded history occurred in September 2001, followed by a WAR against Islam in Afghanistan and now we're involved in ANOTHER war against Islam in Iraq, and you people have the gall to be discussing OLED displays???? My *god*, people, GET SOME PRIORITIES!

    The bodies of the thousands of innocent civilians who died (and will die) in these unprecedented events could give a good god damn about obscure science fiction, your childish Lego models, your nerf toy guns and whining about the lack of a "fun" workplace, your Everquest/Diablo/D&D fixation, the latest Cowboy Bebop rerun, or any of the other ways you are "getting on with your life" (here's a hint: watching Cowboy Bebop in your jammies and eating a bowl of Shreddies is *not* "getting on with your life"). The souls of the victims are watching in horror as you people squander your finite, precious time on this earth playing video games!

    You people disgust me!

  19. Saddam Hussein, leader, dead at 54 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Iraqi president (holder of the popular vote) Saddam Hussein, was found dead in his Baghdad presidential palace this morning. There weren'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 popular culture. Truly an Iraqi icon.

  20. this sounds promising by Unominous+Coward · · Score: 1

    But does the intensity of the colours fade with time? And further, does each intensity decay at a different rate?

    --
    "Smoking helps you lose weight - one lung at a time" -- A. E. Neumann
  21. Goodbye, beloved readers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    My IP is about to be banned for posting the same tired trolls. Time to move on to another proxy! :-D

  22. After seeing the pic... by Spytap · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "World's largest frame for monitor" seems more appropriate! Jesus, there's like a foot of plastic around that thing! Kind of defeats the space saving purpose of LCDs if you have to take everything off of one side of the room just to fit the bitch in sideways!

  23. Resolution by madmarcel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, so I got a bit carried away in my previous message :) But...

    <ramble>
    If you buy a laptop now, most of them are set at the maximum resolution: 1024x768, regardless of whether they have a 12", 14" or 15" LCD screen.
    Only a few offer higher resolutions. Whether or not that's a good thing on a 15" screen is another matter altogether.

    Not too long ago I was using a CGA screen, which had 320x240 in 4 Colours! I thought that was pretty amazing...look how far we've come since then...see if you can find a recently made program that will run in that resolution.
    640x480 is still feasible though...but it's getting less.

    Now Think ahead. Think 5 years ahead.
    The programs, GUIs and interfaces that we use are becoming more graphically demanding, they require better graphics cards, and will probably require higher resolutions.
    Obviously there will be steps in the development of the resolution that these OLED displays are capable of, BUT if you are going to present a new type of display, why not produce a demo/prototype that has a resolution that beats anything currently available on the market? Would create a low more interest than just the 'new technology' angle IMHO

    And think about this: If you are going to make screens BIGGER, the resolution will have to go up as well. Dramatically. Ever looked at those new-fangled plasma displays? Huge screens + low resolution = pretty awfull and WAY too expensive.

    As for myself:
    I use a 17" CRT screen, it's set to (approx) 1400x1200 in X-windows and 1280x1024 in Windoze. I don't think that is too small, I can read the small fonts perfectly (and I do sit some distance away from the screen thankyouverymuch :)

    It's nice to surf the web and be able to see an entire webpage (or most of it) on the screen at once.
    <<Insert obligatory pr0n joke right here ;^) >>
    I can also see more of my code at once. This is a Good Thing(tm) :D

    I get annoyed when I have to use a machine that's set to a lower resolution.

    I must admit though that when other (mostly older) people use my machine they complain about the small fonts.
    </ramble>

  24. Lookit that gigantic bezel by IvyMike · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's too bad that the monoitor has such a gigantic bezel. (And by "bezel", I mean the frame around the monitor) It's ugly, and it make placing multiple monitors side by side less useful.

    In fact, this is sort of a generic question: Why do current LCDs have a bezel, and can OLED technology remove the need for a bezel totally? I thought that the bezel was somehow related to the backlighting, and since OLEDs didn't have backlighting, they could be nearly frameless. But I might have just imagined that. Somebody's got to know.

    1. Re:Lookit that gigantic bezel by lxs · · Score: 3, Funny

      Repeat after me : Pro-to-type!

    2. Re:Lookit that gigantic bezel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pro to type?

      What is he or she going to type? I hope it's better than all the crap-called-scripts that Hollywood "Pros" keep churning out. Maybe it'll be a book, like by Steven King or someone. Or perhaps another installment of Harry Potter...

      At any rate, I don't see what this has to do with a huge case surrounding the monitor!

      - AC

    3. Re:Lookit that gigantic bezel by MrMickS · · Score: 4, Interesting
      In fact, this is sort of a generic question: Why do current LCDs have a bezel, and can OLED technology remove the need for a bezel totally? I thought that the bezel was somehow related to the backlighting, and since OLEDs didn't have backlighting, they could be nearly frameless. But I might have just imagined that. Somebody's got to know.

      On the larger screens here are three possible reasons:

      1. Rigidity. By placing the screen into a large plastic frame the LCD doesn't form part of the physical structure of the display. So if you move it you aren't placing any stress on the TFT matrix.
      2. Damage resistance. Say you've just bought a nice big 23" LCD display with a thin frame around it. You position it on your desk and and a sitting admiring it whilst consuming your favorite beverage. The door opens, you turn forgetting the beaker in your hand and hit it against the edge of the display. Crack it's gone. If only you'd had a larger frame around the display.
      3. Apple started putting large displays around their LCD displays. Everyone else just had to copy :)
      It is interesting considering the lack of a frame around the display on my Ti PowerBook.
      --
      You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
    4. Re:Lookit that gigantic bezel by Epistax · · Score: 1

      It's not needed. I've taken apart my Dell Inspiron 8000. All that really exists around the screen is ~.5 cm band. It would be pretty sweet if desktop systems had screens like that with bendable locking systems to make a 2x1, or even 2x2 or 3x2, tilted at angles depending on the situation

    5. Re:Lookit that gigantic bezel by dmccarty · · Score: 1

      It's not really necessary. If you look at this Dell monitor, for example, it only has a .5" frame around it. We have a few around the office and they're very nice. The frame is so thin that Dell can hardly fit their logo in it!

      --
      Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
    6. Re:Lookit that gigantic bezel by BigBadBri · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It's so dumbasses like me can go...

      Will ye look at the bezels on that!!!

      Seriously, I guess it's because it's a prototype and they need somewhere to house the control circuits that they won't have optimised / minaturised yet.

      I'd imagine that on a production model, the control circuitry could be at the back, and a minimal bezel used to allow you to construct your desired wall of 20" monitors.

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
    7. Re:Lookit that gigantic bezel by vlad30 · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the spot for Sticky (Post-It) Notes ?

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
  25. The size doesn't matter. by Psiren · · Score: 1

    The size doesn't matter to me, the resolution does. This one is only 1280x768. Hell, I run my 17" CRT at 1600x1200. Whats the point in having all that space if you don't make use of it. Show me one running at 1600 or above and I'll consider it.

    1. Re:The size doesn't matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Size always matters, and as for resolution, I don't know what that has to do with the size of a fellow's ... err wait, forget it.

    2. Re:The size doesn't matter. by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      "Hell, I run my 17" CRT at 1600x1200."

      you're gonna go blind then, you stupid twat

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    3. Re:The size doesn't matter. by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
      Yeah - especially since he's prolly only using it for extra hi-res pr0n.

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
    4. Re:The size doesn't matter. by Psiren · · Score: 1

      Don't be a berk. Just because I run at a hi-res doesn't mean I have to look at tiny fonts. I can increase the fonts sizes where necessary.

    5. Re:The size doesn't matter. by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 1

      It bugs me because the aspect ratio is screwed up. Whatever happened to 4:3? While my 17" LCD is otherwise nice, after this I'm never going to buy another monitor that isn't 4:3. It's just too much of a pain in the ass for games.

    6. Re:The size doesn't matter. by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      and what - pray tell - is the dot/AG pitch of your 17"CRT monitor? Unless some CRT manufacturing miracle has occured (or you're using a mono screen) there's NO FUCKING WAY you're gonna see those pixels. So you have to ask "what's the point?" seeing as you're also going to be limiting your refresh by running at 16x12, why not poke it down to 1280x960 and push up the refresh? your eyes'll thank you for it.

      Being generous (ie no underscan) your 17" screen is around 335mm wide - 335/1600 = 0.21ish. I use a Sony F400 and it's MINIMUM AG pitch (it varies across the screen) is 0.22! Being realistic, your screen is more like 315mm wide, and the pitch of your dots more like 0.26 giving you 315/0.26 = 1211.5 H as your MAXIMUM addressable resolution.

      So, whether you increase the size of your fonts or not, your peering at one hell of a soft, flickery screen there.

      You're gonna go fucking blind.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    7. Re:The size doesn't matter. by Psiren · · Score: 1

      You're gonna go fucking blind.

      Okay, whatever you say.

    8. Re:The size doesn't matter. by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      you could at least ARGUE your point - what's the dot pitch of your screen?

      Do you NOT KNOW?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
  26. It's still going to be useless for gamers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...Unless it can avoid the prime reason why gamers avoid LCD's.

    Pixel refresh times. The very best lcd monitors have a pixel rise time of 12, and a pixel fall time of 4, giving you a disgusting scraping haze effect whenever turning in a 3d game, or scrolling lots of text fast.

    If they'd mentioned it's pixel refresh times, I'd have phoned them already, but since they didn't it's probably really pathetic (like regular lcd's)

    1. Re:It's still going to be useless for gamers... by djupedal · · Score: 1

      hyperbole....anecdotal....not current...no longer true...BS.

      If you lined up one hundred PC gamers, and asked them if they refuse to use an in-production 17" LCD, you'd have a line of 100 PC gamers.

    2. Re:It's still going to be useless for gamers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pixel response times for OLEDs are more than 10 times faster than TFT LCDs.

    3. Re:It's still going to be useless for gamers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't actually know, but considering these are LEDs I see no reason why they wouldn't have rise/fall times of a microsecond or less...

    4. Re:It's still going to be useless for gamers... by cgenman · · Score: 1

      The upstairs neighbor bought one with an above-average refresh time last week. He returned it within three days, unsatisfied with the trailing during intense WC3 matches.

      Do you even use these things, or are you going on conjecture?

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    5. Re:It's still going to be useless for gamers... by mr_zorg · · Score: 1
      They did say:
      In addition, the full video capability extends its usability...
      Which I would take to mean it has no such problems. From what I understand of OLEDs they don't suffer the same problems as LCD in that regard. Actual refresh times would be nice though.
  27. Re:Prices? Ahh. Too much then. by cbreaker · · Score: 1

    So in other words, they will be ridiculously expensive.

    Perhaps though it will help bring down the price of the conventional LCD screen. Although prices on LCD screens have come down a hell of a lot, they are still very much more expensive then a CRT.

    I'd be happy with a 20" normal LCD screen for under $550.

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
  28. Right on schedule by djupedal · · Score: 2

    18 months ago, reports were that it would take 18 months for these to come out of the labs.

    Nice to see some industries aren't sitting around...now if we could only get Bluetooth, GSM, 802.g and fuel cells up to speed...

    1. Re:Right on schedule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get GSM out of the labs? I've got news for you, in the developed world (ie outide the USA) it has been an adoped standard for years now. Perhaps one day you'll catch on - things invented outside America are actually worth using. Until you get over the "it wasn't invented here so we aren't going to use it" and the "everyone else will use what we invented or else" attitutdes......

    2. Re:Right on schedule by Hydrogenoid · · Score: 1

      Oh yes!
      A mobile phone with a 20" OLED display...

  29. A Good Tutorial on OLEDs by MjDascombe · · Score: 5, Informative

    Can be found here

  30. Just a question on the basics of OLED by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 1

    I've heard that OLED will solve the refresh rate problems that LCDs have had, so that they'll truly be able to replace CRTs once the prices come down and such. Is this true? The only thing holding me back from buying a new monitor is the fact that I want to game and work on the same unit -- I want the viewable space, smaller form factor and lightweight properties all rolled into one. Is OLED the solution that will bring this all to pass?

    1. Re:Just a question on the basics of OLED by satterth · · Score: 1
      maybe,

      Just wait and find out like the rest of us

      --
      Being called a dork on Slashdot must be like being called the retard in special ed.
  31. No, it will mean bigger profits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll do like nvidia did in the video card market. The prices for the current high end will stay the same and the new tech will be even higher.

    1. Re:No, it will mean bigger profits. by juhaz · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention they will release cheapo version of the "new tech" that will be half the price of "current high end" and still perform the same or better.

      And what's wrong with that? Must always have the vert best? Tough.

  32. be fine for TV though by RMH101 · · Score: 1

    1280x768 is plenty higher than a domestic TV, and people pay a fortune for plasma versions of them.

  33. World's Largest 20inches by birdman666 · · Score: 1

    "World's largest 20" OLED full color display, WXGA (1280x768) with Low power consumption driven by Amorphous Silicon TFTs."

    The world's largest 20" display? Is it that much bigger than other 20" displays? Or does it just have a tremendously large frame?

    --

    Nothing from nowhere I'm no one at all
  34. cheese w/your whine? by djupedal · · Score: 1

    Who said I live in America...and who said 'get GSM out of the lab"?....you've got a (pro-DSM hot-button) chip on your shoulder (hat's too tight, no raisins in your Raisin Bran, whatever) and your flame has nothing to do with anything I said in my comment...sorry for your stress...wish I could help, really.

    Oh, wait...actually...I don't care if your head falls off and lands in the toilet :)

  35. The software is the problem... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    If you have eyesight problems, you may want to mention that.

    I'm sitting here on a notebook, 12.1" screen and 1024x768 resolution. At home, I have a (good) 19" CRT running at 1280x1024. Why? Because many programs never learned to scale properly. Fixed-font types become way too small when I turn it up to 1600x1200, and even the supposedly "standard resize" messes up boxes and menus sometimes due to sloppy programming. Now give me a desktop that looks *exactly* like my current one, only in a higher resolution and I'll take it. I got the monitor for it...

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:The software is the problem... by Osty · · Score: 1

      many programs never learned to scale properly. Fixed-font types become way too small when I turn it up to 1600x1200, and even the supposedly "standard resize" messes up boxes and menus sometimes due to sloppy programming.

      Odd. I've been running at 1600x1200 for more than three years now, and I've never experienced any such problems. Sure, there were the occasional web pages with the sidebar-style background which underestimated desktop sizes and stopped at 1024 horizontal pixels, but those have more or less gone away by now. There's also the few web pages that insist on restricting themselves to a 640 pixel column, even when there's more room, but those are also rare now too. I've never had issues with native applications.


      Now give me a desktop that looks *exactly* like my current one, only in a higher resolution and I'll take it. I got the monitor for it...

      Ah, you got me on the difference between size and resolution. Of course, resolution has pretty much come to mean size, these days, at least when referring to computer displays. Would it be nice to get 300dpi or 600dpi on a monitor? Sure. But I can live with between 72dpi and 96dpi, in exchange for more working area. High dpi is important for graphic artists. Large size is important to most other forms of work (programming, for instance).

  36. Wrong sort of organic by flend · · Score: 2, Informative

    CDT work with novel polymer displays which, particularly in the blue, have stability problems.

    This display is made from small organic molecules - a more mature field and is unlikely to suffer degradation effects any worse than say, a plasma display.

  37. you got that right by lingqi · · Score: 1

    Having a UXGA screen and loving it.

    In fact, Dell used to put out 14.1 inch screens with UXGA resoltion but seem to have stopped that practice (gf got one, loving it too)...

    seriously thinking about plucking down the bux for a d800 (WUXGA at 1920x1200 and centrino-battery-life).

    sigh... why can't apple make screens like that on their powerbooks? Am I the only person out there who would pay for a powerbook with that kind of screen, even if it was twice the price of the said dell?

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

    1. Re:you got that right by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      why do some people insist on using these ludicrous initialisms for screen dimensions? What the fuck is WUXGA supposed to mean? CGA, VGA, SVGA, XGA, UXGA, WUXGA - it's all just a load of meaningless bollocks.

      Personally, I wouldn't use anything that didn't have at least an R2D2 screen, although I'm sure I could manage a palmtop with maybe USGS or - at a pinch - a half PGA screen.

      But only at a pinch.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
  38. Blah... by StopIllegalWar · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Yesterday the USA condemned the UN to death. And you are talking about toys? This is one of the worst moments in humankind history, where peace and war has become just a decission from the powerful countries, and the United Nations have been relegated. Remember what happened to the "Nations League" before the WWII? Monday, March 17th, 2003 George W. Bush 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, DC Dear Governor Bush: So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that "France and the rest of world have to show their cards on the table." I'm glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take much more. So I'm glad to hear that today is Truth Day, 'cause I got a few truths I would like to share with you: 1. There is virtually NO ONE in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of the White House and on to any street in America and try to find five people who are PASSIONATE about wanting to kill Iraqis. YOU WON'T FIND THEM! Why? 'Cause NO Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has even threatened to do that. You see, this is how we average Americans think: If a certain so-and-so is not perceived as a threat to our lives, then, believe it or not, we don't want to kill him! Funny how that works! 2. The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected you -- are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives -- and none of them begin with I or end in Q. Here's what threatens us: two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs two dollars a gallon -- the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve. 3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them. 4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN. The Pope! But even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? Of course, this is a war you personally won't have to fight. Just like when you went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place. 5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't THINK so? Well, hey, guess what -- we don't think so either! 6. Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal screw-ups. Yes, some of them can be pretty damn annoying. But have you forgotten we wouldn't even have this country known as America if it weren't for the French? That it was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it for us? That it was France who gave us our Statue of Liberty, a Frenchman who built the Chevrolet, and a pair of French brothers who invented the movies? And now they are doing what only a good friend can do -- tell you the truth about yourself, straight, no b.s. Quit pissing on the French and thank them for getting it right for once. You know, you really should have traveled more (like once) before you took over. Your ignorance of the world has not only made you look stupid, it has painted you into a corner you can't get out of. Well, cheer up -- there IS good news. If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will be over soon because I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their live

    1. Re:Blah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      Go away! Evil hippie

  39. size doesn't matter by wolfbane01 · · Score: 1

    Of course it does, whatever the girl says to you...size ALWAYS matters!

  40. $2K screens by Boss+Sauce · · Score: 1
    $2000 is the sweet spot! For a long time ('94-'99?), 20" and 21" CRT prices were flat at ~$2000. A lot of that had to do with the quantity sold (not many) since there weren't as many geeks then as now who would sacrifice the space (and their backs) to have a huge CRT around.
    Now with flat panel monitors, a 20" screen doesn't take much more desk space than a smaller one, and you can lift one without assistance. That is driving the sales, and they can get cheaper, but I think this is a significant point in the price curve for TFT LCD's of this size-- it could be a flattening out point.

    So anyone care to wager when 20" OLED screens hit $2K? I'll guess mid 2006, but I bet Apple will have them all over their notebooks much sooner.

  41. Re:It's still going to be useless for... WRONG by Boss+Sauce · · Score: 1

    If your 14" flat panel cost $150 last year and has an analog interface, sure the picture looks like garbage.

  42. most people? by frostman · · Score: 1
    Most people I know...

    Most people I know run their 17" CRTs at 1024x768, which is about as hi-res as you can get and still read the non-scaling bits.

    Most people I know also run their 15" CRTs at 1024x768, because lower resolutions just don't give you enough screen for today's programs.

    With a laptop you're usually closer to the screen anyway.

    I get your point, but I really think it's more ergonomical to go 1024x768 on a 17" CRT and keep your head a little further from the glass.

    --

    This Like That - fun with words!

  43. "organic" != banana peel by aricusmaximus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Probably not a serious problem. If you look at the dupont site http://www.dupont.com/displays/oled/ these appear to be "Polymer OLEDs" or LEDs made with basically a type of plastic. So think organic (carbon based) as in the plastic that makes your keyboard instead of organic as in a banana peel.

  44. World's largest 20" OLED full color display by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    World's largest 20" OLED full color display

    I just find that funny.

    1. Re:World's largest 20" OLED full color display by m1chael · · Score: 1

      you are semantically ambiguous evil fiend!

      worlds first 20" OLED full color display would be less so :)

      --
      I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
  45. Cheaper? by zanetheinsane · · Score: 1

    Hmmm, I remember DVD techonology being touted as "cheaper to produce yet better then VHS". Is this why I'm paying $20-$50 for something which probably cost the manufacturer $1 to make?

    How do we know that they won't just jack up the prices of OLEDs to just under LCDs and pocket the profit?

    1. Re:Cheaper? by stevel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um, because you're paying for much more than the raw manufacturing? A lot of the money goes to the movie studio and the production house which did the mastering, extras, DVD menus, etc. Some goes to the distribution chain.

      Prices to purchase movies have come down a LOT over the past decade, and the quality has gone up. LCD panel prices have also dropped, as have plasma panels and other display technologies formerly considered "exotic". I expect that OLED, should it pan out, will help give us better product at lower prices - eventually.

    2. Re:Cheaper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A dollar? Pleeez. This data is publicly available dood. DVDs are made with almost identical machines used to make CDs. CDRs cost about a cent to make. Call Princo, MediaTek or what's one of the other ones. I forget the big names off hand, but the wholesale prices aren't a secret. A dollar? Fuck, that's outrageous.

  46. Pro to type by satterth · · Score: 1

    speed ball !

    --
    Being called a dork on Slashdot must be like being called the retard in special ed.
  47. Missing the real point here... by Dr+Zubi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A lot of the discussion is a rehash of whether OLED's have advantages in power consumption, response time, viewing angle, and color compared to LCD's (the answer is yes). What no one seems to have noticed is that the point of the announcement is that this display was built using amorphous silicon TFT's. This is the same technology used for active matrix LCDS. This means that display companies that want to convert some of their LCD production capacity to OLEDs can do so without necessarily the $500,000,000-$1,000,000,000 it takes to put up a polysilicon fab (like Kodak/Sanyo are doing). So, this means more OLEDs, sooner, for the masses.

  48. Chi Mei == Big Stuff by GuyMannDude · · Score: 1

    Leave it to a firm named "Chi Mei" to give you something big that's fun to look at. Those of you who are familiar with Hong Kong starlet Amy Yip Chi-Mei know that she, too, possess some big things that are fun to look at!

    GMD

    --
    watch this
    1. Re:Chi Mei == Big Stuff by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Mmmmm-mmm. Tasty :) But I think you should have made the first link one to google images instead of plain google :)

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  49. From Work to Home by Kevin+Jackson · · Score: 1

    and it's pretty annoying to go from my desktop 19" or 21" CRTs at 1600x1200 to the 16" LCD at 1280x1024

    I know what you mean. At work I get to use a beautiful 19" mitsubishi at 1600x1200, at a really pleseant refresh. It's so painful to go home and use my 5-year-old monitor that can barely handle 1024x768. The refresh is bad enough that I use 800x600 except for games...

    I'd buy a new monitor, but all my money's going into paying for school next summer. :)

    Kevin

  50. Look at the screen shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having a look at the screenshot of the 20" display in the article, I could be wrong, but it looks like the image chosen doesn't have alot of blues in it. The sort of image that if the blue capability of the screen was poor you wouldn't notice the shortcoming.
    Course it's a first attempt, so lets not be too harsh.

  51. tiny pixels aren't the problem, stupid apps are by spage · · Score: 1
    what's the point of 1600x1200 on a 15 inch screen? Your only going to run it at 800x600 unless you want to be straining your eyes all the time.

    No, you increase the size of everything to compensate for tiny pixels. In Windows, set Display Properties > Scheme to "Windows Classic (extra large)", then configure each app to use larger fonts, or use Ctrl + mouse-wheel to zoom in Mozilla and some M$ apps.

    So you get super-crisp text that isn't tiny, and you actually take advantage of your graphics card's support for huge resolutions.

    You're still left with stupid apps that won't zoom (e.g. pixel sizing in MSIE) and tiny GIF images.

    Unfortunately so many people leave their monitors at the original default resolution that people who use huge resolution are treated like fringe cases and ignored by stupid app developers.

    Your graphics card can do huge resolutions, use them and bitch to the app developers that force pixel layout!

    --
    =S
  52. certified organic? by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

    but are they non-GMO???

    --
    This space available.
  53. Why a 15:9 aspect ratio? Why not 16:9? by Craig+Allen · · Score: 1

    (is aspect ratio the right term?)

    Seems like if you're going to get close to the widescreen ratio, why not go all the way to 16:9 (they talk about WXGA at 1280:768, I've not heard that "standard" before). Maybe they are having problems producing a large enough screen.

    (Maybe I'm just pissed that the OLED startup stock I bought has gone nowhere but down.)

  54. Even more than prices or power consumption... by zackbar · · Score: 1

    is desk real estate. Flat panel oled is gonna be great, (I hope).

    I've never been able to find a decent desk or table that would take my 20" crt and my keyboard, and still give me space to work comfortably.

    With an OLED monitor, I could potentially hang it on the wall behind the desk. Worst case, it could sit at the back of the desk and I wouldn't have to lean back to avoid trashing my eyes like I do now.

    Sure, I could by a flat panel now. But all the ones I've seen are 15" and still cost way too much. The OLED displays are supposed to be far cheaper to produce, and this one is 20".

  55. Visual developers need high resolution monitors by solprovider · · Score: 1

    Visual developers need high resolution monitors.

    Most Java IDEs and Lotus Notes needs 1024x768 just to have all the panels readable. MS Visual Interdev is much worse; most developers start with 1280x1024, but quickly switch to 1600x1200.

    The IDEs need room for a:
    - object browser,
    - visual layout, and a
    - code editor.
    Other possibilities include a
    - project browser, and
    - quick reference.

    I write Java using Notepad or vi, but I still wish for more vertical space so I can read many lines of code at once. I wish my monitors had the ability to turn sideways. They can do 1920x1440. 1440x1920 would be better for programming. But 60lb 21" monitors are not easily to position on their side.

    --
    I spend my life entertaining my brain.
    1. Re:Visual developers need high resolution monitors by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I can't stand IDE's really. Part of it is my dislike of wasted screen space. A tabbed console to program in is about as fancy as I like to get. The fancier tools I really like to have on a different screen. I've had object browsers, references, etc running on other monitors at times and I think that is a very nice way of doing it.

      X can rotate your viewpoint (dunno about other OS's). If you can find a decent way to rotate your monitor such that it doesn't fall over then you could use it that way. Build yourself a special stand. Could be cool.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  56. What kind of OLEDs are in the display? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real question is what kind of OLEDs are being used? The article says that IBM is somehow involved, but they don't own any of the OLED patents. The companies with the primary keys to the kingdom are Kodak, who control the small-molecule OLED formulations, Universal DIsplay Corporation, who has phosphorescent OLED patents, and Cambridge Display Technology, who has the Polymer OLED IP, and Opsys, who is workign on dendrimer tech to increase OLED lifetimes.

    This not only affects who gets the money, it also is an indicator of color gamut and processing technology. Each formulation has pros and cons with respect to operating lifetime, how the material can be deposited on the substrate, and color saturation.

    The OLED industry currently has an agreement that any company can create prototype displays using anyone's chemistries, as long as they don't try to sell it. That's why Sony was able to use Kodak's small-molecule materials in the prototype OLED display they have been showing around.

    In other words, the device is the first step. The negotiations come after.

  57. Re:Why a 15:9 aspect ratio? Why not 16:9? by DaChesserCat · · Score: 1

    Well, it's big enough to get 720P (1280x720, progressive) HDTV on there and still have room for subtitles/controls, etc. at the bottom of the screen.

    --
    ... by the Dew of Mountains the thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning
  58. Get Better Display Software by billstewart · · Score: 1
    If you can't get your window system to use the fonts you like for the resolution your screen runs at, get better window software - we've had it for over 15 years!. You can probably make most of it in X if you can't do it in Windows, but it's been done better by other people.

    Sun's NeWS network extensible windowing system was a Postscript-based window system in ~1987 that was much more flexible than X about what objects lived where, and what you saw on the screen really was what you got on paper. OK, it was written in Postscript, debugging was marginal at best, crashing was ugly and undebuggable, and security was non-existent (:-), but Gosling who wrote it was able to carry over many of the lessons to Java.

    Display Postscript, which the NeXT folks picked up, wasn't quite as powerful, but most programmers who used the stuff raved about it, and being Postscript-based it looked really nice. How much of that is still there in OSX?

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks