Slashdot Mirror
Chi Mei Announces 20" Active Matrix OLED Display
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."
If it's organic, would it decay in time?
Kidneys as forms of payment? :-/
Seriously how long before this technology becomes affordable?
...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.
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.
Or, it's ch-ch-ch-CHIA!
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Can be found here
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