Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Announces Largest-Ever OLED Display
kaos.geo writes "Samsung announces a 17" OLED display.
The article specifies that they are using a laser to 'print' the display instead of the previous 'spraying' methods." 400 lumens isn't shabby. Update: 05/18 23:49 GMT by T : jhealy writes "Seiko Epson, on the heels and light years ahead of Samsungs announcement earlier today, have announced a 40" OLED monitor. Eat that Samsung!"
According to OLED rumors, it is excellent (ie. better than anything we have currently) out-of-the-box. However after a year you will notice fading, and in two years it will be worse than LCD.
Code poet, espresso fiend, starter upper.
Epson wins again... here is the cutline from a photo on the wire service.
JAPAN EPSON TOPIX
A model displays a prototype of Epson's new OLED (organic light-emitting diode) display in Tokyo Tuesday, May 18, 2004. The maker claims it's the world's largest (40-inch) full-color organic display. Using the printer maker's inkjet technology, the self-luminescent OLED offers high contrast, wide viewing angle, and fast response. The company is thus gearing up towards commercialization in 2007. (AP Photo/Katsumi Kasahara)
{ Pillar candles great for when the power fails and you cant see the keyboard..
Contrast isn't an issue, because unlike LCD panels which backlight the whole panel and rely on "hiding" the backlight for "black"(but plenty escapes anyway if the backlight is too bright). On an OLED panel, if a pixel is off, it generates absolutely no light. Theoretical contrast is then essentially infinite; zero:something is infinite. The only remaining issue is how bright "on" is, and that's been specified as 400 lumens.
What is even better is the resolution. The specified 1600x1200; in a 17" panel, that's quite nice, as previously it was 1280x1024 tops.
Please help metamoderate.
Don't know if anyone noticed the "feedback" bit at the bottom, but there's a link to another review on the Seiko Epson 40" OLED display.
i re/2004/05/18/rtr1374939.html
http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/newsw
Homonyms are fun!
You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
i have a raid array of lightbulbs
:-P
:-)
I think that would be a RAIL.
But, seriously, you bring up a good point, although inadvertently.
Organic LED displays essentially have a little lightbulb (LED, actually) for each subpixel, so it is an "AIL" (Array of Inexpensive LEDs). But there is no redundancy. If one dies, you lose that pixel forever. LEDs have a limited lifetime, but it's far longer than the regular lightbulb that you joke about. A normal LED has a lifetime of around 100,000 hours for monochromatic chips (a bit over ten years of continuous use), but there is a Gaussian distribution around that. When you are talking about a 1600x1200 display, with 5,760,000 individiual subpixels, you're going to see some failures within a few years, guaranteed. And once they flake out, there's no realistic way to repair them.
LCDs, by contrast, are illuminated by one or two cold-cathode tubes with a shiny surface behind the display to distribute the light evenly, which goes through the LCD panel and out to your eyes. The LCD subpixels do not die over time, but sometimes are defective originally in the LCD matrix (thus giving you dead or stuck pixels). The best cold cathode tubes used LCDs have lifetimes of around 30,000 hours of continuous use (about 3.5 years), although they can theoretically be replaced when they fail. However, this is not typically done (except under warranty) because they are not of standard designs. (You can't just go to CompUSA and pick up a replacement cold cathode tube for your LCD.)
The real upshot of all of this is that no matter which fancy flat-panel display you get, turn it off when you aren't using it.
LCDs are now starting to get crazily, blindingly bright--in an attempt to jack contrast ratios up over 500:1. Contrast ratio is important, but since backlit LCDs can't display black, the darkest black isn't that dark and that's static. So the only thing left to do is crank up the bright end.
OLEDs on the other hand can actually display black, therefore they can have a higher contrast ratio without being so bright. The net effect is that they are nicer to look at.
Also, some would say that it's easier to make bigger OLED displays than LCD displays. I don't know about that. 1600x1200 isn't very common for desktop LCDs, but I've seen it available in laptops for years now.
Frankly for most people it's a minor change. It's definitely a _potential_ improvement though.
they already beat ya to it...
here
THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
One big advantage that I would expect OLED's to have over LCD's that no one has been talking about is refresh rate.
Unlike LCD's, OLED's don't rely on a structural transformation of the molecules in the display to shift a pixel from one state to the next.
This should mean that the pixels can switch from "on" to "off" much faster, hopefully fast enough for the screen to be used for gaming.
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
Doing a quick search on google I found this
Shows a lot of useful information regarding OLED screens.
Got tired of waiting for the perfect monitor, if there will ever be such a thing, and resorted to having a CRT and and LCD on the desk. The CRT is my gaming monitor, the LCD for everything else.
HP Pavilion zt3000. 1.4ghz Pentium-M, 30gb, 384MB, CD-RW. I bought it just before Christmas when they were having some pretty hefty rebate and coupon deals. I think there was a $150 mail-in rebate, $50 instant online rebate, and I had a 10% off coupon, plus 3% of from fatwallet.com, and free two day shipping (from Shanghai!)
sig.
Actually, it is the blue that decays the fastest. Red and green are about the same.
You're thinking of FOLEDs and SOLEDs.
Flexible Organic LEDs, and Stacked Organic LEDs.
FOLEDs use the nature of Organic LEDs to make a more versatile viewing surface. One that can be rolled and contorted as much as, say, a thin sheet of plastic. I do not, however, reccomend trying to bend it.
SOLEDs use the transparency of Organic LEDs to stack red green and blue on top of each other. This gives every single pixel the entire range of color, thereby tripling the resolution for any given display surface. When this hits the market a 15" SOLED display will be more desirable than a 21" LCD display.
Think of a device which you pull apart while the display surface unrolls out of the larger half as you're pulling it out (like older window shades). Hollywood showed us this device in the movie Red Planet. True, just the possibility of this is a long way off, but OLED's are a step in this direction.
GearBits has a cool animation of a pen using this technology.
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
What do you mean no one talks about it? That's one of the main advantages of OLED over LCD that everyone mentions when the OLED topic comes up is its ability to change state from on to off MUCH faster.
Yes it will be useful for gaming. OLED delays are measured in microseconds, not milliseconds.
Also, the contrast ratio of OLED displays are MUCH better than LCD, which are still piss-poor at best.
LCD almost has the display angle problems licked, usually on the more expensive monitors. What's good about OLED is this isn't even an issue. Like CRT, you can turn it however you want.
While LCD power consumption IS low...OLED is even lower than backlit LCD.
And then there is cost. OLED screens are just printed on. With inkjet tech usually, although it's laser in this case. There is no high voltage circuitry necessary for fluorescent backlighting, no tubes, no expensive-to-produce LCD panel. Sure the initial costs of OLED might be high to justify the r&d, but the cost to produce an OLED screen is a fraction of that of LCD.
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
I have a 15" laptop at 1600x1200, and it is great. The key is that X is configured to know the DPI and the fonts are rendered with much more definition (crisper lines, smoother curves).
3D games are another area where high resolution can lead to a smoother experience, so long as the game has little raster-font content.
Combine this with a more and more vector based interface, and you get a lot more flexibility. High resolution small displays no longer have to mean unreadable, they can mean much higher quality text and graphics.
Additionally, I can work with large numbers of windows or large spreadsheets and such by scaling fonts back down and still be able to work with it, albeit it less comfortably. It just feels right.
I also have a 21.4" flatpanel on my desk at 1600x1200, and for the most part the fonts are no larger, just more content can fit because of the DPI awareness (though non-vector images are much more bearable on that screen, but I actually see fewer and fewer things that matter in that format that have so much detail that it matters).
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Conventional LED's used as a screen (think Times Square) do not comprise an OLED monitor. The "O" is for "organic," whereby organic inks are made to produce their own light. An LED uses a completely different phenomenon.
And there's a 1440x960 17" on mine. Aside from the laptop market, it is extremely difficult to find anything other than the following size/resolution combos:
LCD panels have been out for years but this has remained a near constant, while the laptop industry has seen pixel densities skyrocket, with zero crossover to the desktop market.
Please help metamoderate.
Unfortunately I believe its a touch more complicated. PC Mag notes because of the sensitivity of the materials in the process "this calls for a more complex fabrication process. Also, any exposure to air or moisture destroys OLEDs, so the materials must be perfectly sealed."
Applied Films I think explains the problem best:
The deposition of the organic layers itself is critical too, because of the sensitivity of the material (e.g., high temperature, incorporation of dust and dirt). The high price of the coating material also makes high material utilization a priority.
Not that it matters but IAMICE (majoring in chemical engineering)
"The truth suffers from too much analysis"
The lifetime is actually on a par with most of the average CCFL tube backlights (10-15k hours with some of the premium ones going for up to 30k hours...).
So... If you run your LCD monitor without blanking, etc., you can expect the thing to start fading somewhere after about 10 or so months and dead sometime in the first quarter of the next year- just like OLEDs.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
...as you'd think.
As others have pointed out, it's BLUE that fades fastest. But, what everyone has missed in this discussion is that CCFL backlight lifespan, the lifetime for the backlighting used by LCD monitors isn't much better than the blue OLED material. Average lifespan for a CCFL tube is something on the order of 10-15k hours (uh, the average lifespan for the blue OLED material is 10k hours...) and the premium tubes tend to have about 30k hours of lifespan- and you're not likely to see the premium tubes in most applications.
To put this all in perspective:
(OLEDs)
24 hours in a day.
10k hours of average usable continuous runtime.
416 days of average usable continuous runtime.
1.14 years of average usable continuous runtime.
(CCFL backlit LCDs)
24 hours in a day.
10-15k hours of average usable continuous runtime.
416-625 days of average usable continuous runtime.
1.14-1.71 years of average usable continuous runtime.
The low-end is more likely than the high-end on LCDs based on my personal experience. Without cut-off, etc. your LCD panel will be effectively dying or dead within about 12-14 months, just like an OLED display panel. If the cost of an OLED display is dirt cheap, which one do you think will win out.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Actually when OLEDs die, they don't simply stop working. The voltage at which they turn on begins to shift higher over time. With the right active matrix circuitry, you can compensate for this and extend the lifetime of the device.
MOD PARENT DOWN!
7 3
Dude, shut up and think before you speak. You don't know what you are talking about. I spent about 10 seconds looking up the bulb for my Infocus X1 (a DLP projector). The price is under $300 with a 4000 hour life! That comes to about 7.5 cents per hour for the cost to operate. A link: http://www.compuplus.com/insidepage.php3?id=10022
It is people like you that call into my help desk to tell me that I need to replace their computer because their "screen is black" and has been for 2 weeks. Their system came back to life when the surge protector was turned on.
You are a good example of natural selection gone wrong.
Sig Return: 204 No Content
According to a local newspaper (Nagano, Japan), the present estimated lifespan for the prototype is 1000-2000 hours, which needs to be boosted to 10000 hours before appearing in your living room.