Slashdot Mirror
Sony Begins OLED Mass Production
Dodger73 writes "According to their press release at sony.net, Sony beings mass production of full color OLED displays at 3.8" size for their Clie PEG-VZ90 'Personal Entertainment Handheld.' The press release claims, that their 'Super Top Emission' technology reaches 150cd/m^2; at the familiar 1000:1 contrast ratio.
Not quite the 19" display I'd like for my computer at home, but definitely a step in the right direction."
OLED = Organic Light-Emitting Diode
should be quite a bit lower than lcds. The diods are far less efficient than the lcd backlights, BUT:
-You dont need polarizers and color filters (those absorb >2/3 of the light in a lcd)
-Dark pixels are just not powered/lower powered (if the typical brightness level is low, this is another factor of 2-4).
So the organic leds only need 10% of the effience of normal ones to break even, which should be very archiveable.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Has any progress been made regarding the life of these displays? Last I heard, the longest these things would last was about a year or two before going too dim to be useful.
Unless Sony is figuring that the early adopters will be people who tend to buy new PDA's quite frequently anyway, and will therefore be willing to get rid of this one once the next generation comes out the following year...
OLEDs can be made much bigger and lighter than CRTs without sacrificing performance. This means the elderly can run Firefox with 72 point fonts so they can read them and still fit a page width on the screen.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
...Sony releases the Clie VZ90. To bad it's for Japan only, as Sony has decided to pull out of USA and Europe when comes to PDAs.
TC - My Photos..
The new Clie that they've just introduced is more of an entertainment device than a traditional PDA. Since the Clie brand is well-known and respected, it would make very good sense for them to start selling entertainment devices under the Clie brand in the US, I guess.
~~~ Centigrade 233 ~~~ yaku, yaku, yaku!
Yes they did play a big part in the development of OLED technology.
Kodak OLED Research
Production cost is one factor. It is still more expensive to manufacture these things. There are articles out there that claim otherwise, but they are simply wrong. Here is an Independent analysis of manufacturer who happens to make OLEDS. It is a good synopsis of what the real problem is there.
The other problem is that the operation life span of an OLED display is much shorter than other comparable display technologies. The link here is a really good PDF on OLED, what it really is and what advantagious and it's problems. (apologize of my spelling errors, I was too lazy to go back and correct them.)
Wikipedia-link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED Wikipedia states that the main advantage is that (apart from the contrast ratio and the response times) it doesn't need back-lighting and thus has a lower power-consumption. Will this also be true for very large OLED displays? I can imagine that, since every single pixel has to light up by itself, it can be more efficient to use a backlight. Anyone has an idea about the power consumption per pixel for OLEDs and TFT/LCD?
--Use ant to make
`Mother nature knows best' :) Unfortunately the word `organic' here just means based on carbon chemistry. The organic materials used in OLED and PLEDs (polymer LEDs) do not occur in nature and have to be synthesised by chemists (eg. Alq3, PPVs etc.)
The data sheet included in the press release gives 16msec for LCD, 0.01msec for OLED. That's 1600 x more responsive by my calculation.
NO real progress has been made in that area. The color failure rate is still pretty high. the typical failure is a pixel getting 'stuck' in the on or off position. Being that the display is more expensive to make than other available technologies, they probably won't be replaceable and will make the units, escentially, throw aways or disposables.
See my other comment for details and supporting links.
perhaps one day we will have an organic computer!
hate to burst your bubble but just because they are made out of 'organic' materials doesnt mean they are natural. All it means is that instead of oil based acrylics, and metal laden materials, they are using carbon-based materials that have fast-transfer dendric properties. These materials are about as natural as DDT. They are still really cool devices tho and have a great contribution to technology, just dont go around thinking its like an extenstion of the human body or about to go reproducing on its own now...
...and it should be known by now
The big problem with OLEDs is you need some way to make them dark. Really- the ITO substrate is highly reflective, and given the nature of the panel that means your 'off' colour is actually your ambient light level reflected right back at you.
.5ma to 1ma and you can get your 1000:1 but at the cost of lifetime (chemical migration, etc).
:)
Which lowers the effective contrast to about 30:1.
When you add a polarizer, you can get up to about 250:1. Crank the driving current from
So yes, you don't particularly need to 'filter' the light, but some modern OLED designs still do... and since I don't know what I can and can't say I won't say anything
(used to work on them till they laid me off... bastards)
you can get as high as 14 bit colour.
Of course that means you need specialized EVERYTHING for displaying a photo, down to how the image is scanned (high end scanners can do *real* 12 and 14 bit imaging... don't believe that 16bit crap- it's usually 'marketing bits' for the last couple.
So if you have a dedicated viewing system that can display an image appropriately at the bit depth (which is a bit of an oxymoron when you're talking about analog systems) you've got an easy 13 bit display.
And want to know something really interesting about that? The image looks lifelike. As in, you could almost reach in and touch it.
8 bit really sucks.