Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Shows Off 21" OLED Display
aztektum writes "C|Net and Technewsworld.com have posted stories about Samsung's new 21" OLED.
Chosun.com has a picture and a projection that OLEDs will be a 2.2 billion dollar a year market by 2008."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I want one!
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
Does she come with the OLED? :D
Hi,
It's me, Peter. I'm writing from 2008.
I still don't have an OLED display on my desktop.
I'm still the only person I know that uses Linux as his primary desktop.
I do have ATI drivers for Fedora Core 3 though!
-Peter
do you need to feed this thing?
Awesome review, without any pictures or screen shots I imagine this to the best monitor ever. Since there is no price mentioned it must be under 100 dollars, and I only have to wait 3-5 years to get one that will last more than a month.
Gosh I just can't wait!
Apple free since 1990!
Are all the colors (blue in particular) working yet?
It says in the article that the life will be shorter than that of an LCD. I thought LED's pretty much lasted forever (~20 years).
Why do i get the impression that it's bad at showing shades of blue?
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
I am very impressed with the progress Korean electronic manufacturers have made in the past 5 years. Is there any doubt that they are the equal of their Japanese counterparts? Especially Samsung.
That's 6.22m subpixels really. 1920x1080 display, 3 subpixels (RGB) per pixel = 6220800 subpixels, or 2073600 full pixels.
Still, I would like this display, especially if it was cheap and suitable for computer work as well as video work.
How does pixel response time have anything to do with resolution? That should strictly be a function of pixel size, shouldn't it? I have a feeling that someone didn't translate something right, or else flat out doesn't know what they're talking about.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
6.22 millions pixels for a 21 inch that impressive !
I want 30 inch model minimum. 21" isnt a big deal.
Ahh - Sub Pixels - I was trying to work it out and came up with a display that was about 3,300 x 1,800 - which seemed pretty amazing, OLED or no OLED.
/.
Duh.
I'm too stupid for
-Jar.
Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
I agree about the price thing though.
The resolution is quoted as being about 6.22 million pixels, which makes the resolution 1920x1080.
I assume the screen is 16x9, and that the quoted pixel count is counteing each red, green and blue element as seperate.
From the picture link:
OLED display responses are 1,000 times faster than liquid crystal displays (LCDs), thus enabling greater resolution.
geez, they wrote that with a straight face?
It's 1920x1080 - the quoted pixel count is for each red, green and blue element.
Rocketman768 has alerted me that samsung is busy investigating TV counterfieting in China and won't have time to continue development until it is resolved.
I think Samsung and Korea or Asia in general should be congratulated on this, given that just 4 decades ago, their GNP/GDP was equivalent to some of the sub Saharan countries. At this pace, these Asians will surpass the [mighty] US in another three decades.
It might be useful to remind people that organic does not imply life. Organic, in a chemical sense (I am fairly certain - though I am studying physics, not chemistry), implies molecules with carbon (and maybe hydrogen or oxygen?), nothing more. Similarly, organic molecules are hypothesized to be widely distributed through space (such as on Titan, where they may rain from the sky). While organic molecules might be necessary to have life, alone they may not be sufficient for it.
The monitor is hot. The asian woman holding it is hot. A win-win article.
They said only 75% of the color gamut is possible. I heard OLED had problems with blue fading out much faster than the other colors. Also, the life of the monitor is only 10,000 hours. Which 416 days. That's pathetic. It's gotta be at least 25,000 to 50,000. Because lifetime actually refers to a decline of 75% of brightness.
Do you?
I've searched and searched, and could never find an explanation for why these are refered to as organic.
One article I found briefly mentioned bioluminescent life forms and how they are very efficient at producing light, but didn't say anything about what that has to do with OLED displays. And a PDF I found about the subject talked about the process of synthesizing the electroluminescent materials used. Sorry, I don't have the links to these.
But if they are synthesized, doesn't that mean that they are NOT organic?
And what does electroluminescence have to do with bioluminescence.
i doubt anyone will be able to buy OLED tv's before quite some time... Just seeing how much money LCD and TFT are generating, how much investements they have in those technologies, and since OLED should be much cheaper generating less profit large manufacturers will wait as much as possible before introducing these. Fortunately Nashs theory will eventually kick in and as soon as one of them comercialises one, they all will. So basically expect a lot of nothing then a boom with everything.
but 1920x1280 comes out to a little over 2.4 million pixels, does it not?
Whoops sorry, I didnt see 1/3 for each color. I guess I really don't get monitor math!
It could be 3300x1800, if you like B&W monitors.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
now thats more like it !
"With the development of the world's largest OLED at WUXGA resolution, Samsung has achieved a technological advantage and is positioned well to be a leader in the large-sized OLED for the TV market," said Jun-Hyung Souk, senior vice president of the LCD R&D Center.
bring on the good resolution because 1280x1024 just isnt enough on a 19" flatscreen (unless i spend double)
amazing that 15" laptops can do 1600x1200 cheaply yet 17-19" standalone lcd's have trouble
if fark is the trailer park of the internet, surely /. is the someone's mom's basement of the internet....
What's the power consumption of a unit like this? How does it compare to an LCD screen?
3D Printing Tips and Tricks at Zheng3.com
Then welcome!
In the spoon, there is no Soviet Russia!
I know lcd is less harmful than CRT,but still 21" is quite a lot of screen.
And thinking of 21" CRT is not real bad to eyes?
I strongly doubt that this picture is actual footage from the display picture-quality. Seems to me that they've inserted a nice image with some photo-editing software. It is just to show the outer case.
I wonder if this first generation of consumer OLED displays will last as long as a CRT.
I hope they last longer than a Plasma display, since color fading is one of that technologies drawbacks.
-Sean
The fact that it contains no blue makes you wonder.
...on my phone (E700), the front screen is a small OLED. The thing you notice immediately is that it can be viewed perfectly from any angle (compared, for instance, to the TFT on the inside screen which has the normal LCD viewing range). Since it is light emitting (rather than requiring a backlight) the black is also pretty much as black as a CRT.
I am NaN
The blue OLEDs don't last very long at all.
...the problem that OLED displays tend to burn out fairly quickly, I don't see the drive for "bigger and better."
Sure, it's nice to see a big array, but making OLED displays bigger isn't exactly the primary technical consideration to be worried about at this point, and solving it isn't in my opinion an achievement to get so excited about.
Power consumption. Lifespan. Solve one of those and I'll get exicted about OLED. But just building a bigger one with the same problems? Yawn.
No, no, no. Organic just means that they were created without chemical pesticides or fertilizers.
The CB App. What's your 20?
I wonder what it's using the rest of the week... Maybe it goes into passive mode (or does this only happen on Sundays?
I don't need a signature.
Anyone seen the estimated retail prices on OLED compared to similar LCD/Plasma displays?
I keep reading in the speculative press that these will be more cost-effective from a fab/production stand point, but what will that translate to for the consumer?
A 20" WXGA display for a price comparable to CRTs sure would be nice.
word,
Levendis47
--==[ AOL YIM ICQ : Levendis47 : levendis47@yahoo.com ]==--
hehehe.
My father is an R&D Organic Chemist working in a large company. They recently moved him from working on stuff that he's been doing for over 20 years to researching OLEDs. The reason? They're lifespan is shorter than anything else on the market right now, hence all the research.
Are these organic LEDs gonna be sold on Whole Foods?
...did what I just did - race over to the jpeg of a photo of a better display than my iBook to see just how much more wonderful it was.
;-)
Looks great!
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
I think while Samsung is commended for getting OLED's to 21" size, they're going to have a seroius competitor for truly flat displays with the Canon/Toshiba SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display) that will be available on the market in the fall of 2005.
Sure, SED's do use more power than LCD's, but SED's make up for this with CRT-level brightness without the finicky geometry calibrations needed for high-resolution CRT's. It will be well after SED displays become commonplace that we'll see a proliferation of OLED dislays.
A wide ultra-extended graphics array is clearly the better alternative to a super ultra-extended graphics array.
Pete, this is 1995, here. We want our lame attempt at humor back.
-- Boycott Shell
How does this make sense? How does faster switching time == greater resolution? This really leads me to wonder about the veracity of these articles.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Well at the moment companies basically have a unspoken deal not to bring OLED on the market too soon to be able to gain as much as possible from the current TFT technology, however there is only but one Nash's equilibrium which is where all companies offer cheaper solutions (this time its OLED). So basically what im saying is that someday some company will bring out a cheaper solution wether it be OLED (certainly appears so now) or something else and all companies will have to bring their cheaper solutions/products. But lets face it, noone has any reason to speed up the process at the moment, so theres little chance this new tech boom will happen before some time. -WaZ-
Insightful.
-- Boycott Shell
4. LCDs are slow. This got better recently, but the problem is inherent in the way an LCD pixel turns off.
To turn a pixel on, you apply an electric potential that breaks up the crystal lattice and turns the liquid crystal molecules vertically WRT to glass. This can be made faster by using higher electric potential, perhaps.
To turn the pixel off, the long molecules of the liquid cristal material have to turn and recrystallize parallel to the glass, creating the twisted lattice that turns the polarization angle of the passing light. This happens by itself, w/o any energy input to the material, so you can't just "crank up the power" and hope for a faster display - you have to invent a material whose energy is significantly lower when it's crystallized parallel to the grooves in the glass than when it's not.
OLED displays, OTOH, turns on and off within microseconds, just like any LED.
In most laptops the LCD screen failure is caused by the backlight breaking - if you shine a really bright light at the screen you'll still be able to make out the LCD display. Obviously most users don't have the know how to replace a backlight, and so just buy a new laptop. Backlights typically fail anything from 3 - 10 years, so normally you'd be thinking of upgrading when it went anyway :)
Of a *picture* of an OLED display, if you're only going to be viewing the picture on a *LCD or CRT*? I mean, how can can you ever appreciate it???
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
I thought LED's pretty much lasted forever (~20 years).
Your typical LEDs are large crystals with doping atoms substituted for a miniscule fraction of the regular atoms in the structure. This is an extremely stable arrangement of atoms and lasts a long time, despite the electrical forces applied to it. Even if an atom is knocked out of place it tends to fall back into place, and it takes an enormous amount of damage to make it stop working, or even become appreciably less efficient.
Organic LEDs are based on single small molecules consisting of a carbon structural backbone with a bunch of other stuff hanging off it. This is nowhere near as stable. When you hammer it with enough energy to make it vibrate and release a photon - especially an energetic blue photon, you're stressing it with an appreciable fraction of the energy needed to break the backbone bonds, and occasionally the bonds break. Once it breaks it doesn't heal - that molecule is no longer playing the game.
It's a dye. Notice how dies fade when exposed to sunlight (with its blue and ultraviolet photons hammering the bonds). Now imagine the dye molecules hammered directly by mobile energetic electrons and forced into an energy state higher than that supplied by a photon of the color they emit.
OLEDs, especially the blue ones, have a short lifteime. On an atomic scale it may be enormous. But on a human scale if you leave it on 24/7 the blue has lost half its intensity in a tad over a year. (More if there's a lot of blue in the image. And it will have a serious burnin issue so you'd better use a "screensaver" with a pattern that's designed to actually save the screen rather than being pretty moving wallpaper.)
Apparently they haven't come up with a good solution to the problem. But they're going ahead with production anyhow.
If they don't either provide a cheap replacement for the screen material or drop the price to the mid-to-low two-digit levels for ordinary screen sizes I predict that OLED monitors will get a rep for being unacceptably flakey within about two years.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This wobbulation looks more like a smoothing technique than anything else. You don't get any more resolution. At least not the way that link is describing. If you can shift the optical path in between you can increase the resolution. if you dont' all you get is a smoothing algorithm, which could be done on the input side for that matter.
.9" chip at that.
I haven't seen a display using one of TI's 1280x720 chips claiming they do 1920x1080 resolution. Sounds like complete BS to me.
Also TI does have a real 1920x1080 DLP chip.
It is the xHD3 a big
See the following for chips and specs:
http://www.digiupdate.com/105_DLP_RPTV.html
Why do i get the impression that it's bad at showing shades of blue?
Traditionally the blue OLEDs have been the ones with shorter lifetimes not with poor color purity. [...]
However, that the Samsung demo image contains no discernable blue is very strange indeed. I have my doubts that it was left out unintentionally.
Looks to me like they have a nasty problem with burn-in and they don't want to have it show in the demos.
The OLED dies fade with use, and the blue fades much faster than the other two. So blue pixels that are lit will become perceptably dimmer in a moderately short time. If they use a lot of blue in the images they demo, the screen will quickly become burned-in and blotchy. Even if they come up with some way to avoid the blotchyness (like a screensaver that averages to a negative of what has been shown before) the blue will fade and blue colors will become less brilliant and impressive.
The stories say that they haven't soled this but are going ahead with the monitor anyhow. IMHO the lack of blue in the demo picture confirms it.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Does it come with dead pixels? If you're outside of South Korea, the answer is Yes!
*drool*
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
Currently only HD3 engined DLP sets use wobbulation. HD2 and HD2+ do not wobbulate, they are native.
The HD3 chip is actually 640x720 and shifts the chips midstream to wobbulte to 1280x720.
Viewiers are split. The image on the wobbulate sets is smoother and screen door is eliminated, but the overall image is softer.
Some think the wobbulators cause more rainbows. Nothing conclusive on this, but it makes sense as this effectively cuts the colour wheels speed in half.
Given the Above I would avoid HD3. I would take sharper over smoothing and increased possability of rainbows in annoying.
Organic Chemistry is ... chemistry involving carbon. That's the meaning of "Organic". Some hippies have co-opted the term to describe a variation on farming practices that would have left most of the world still doing the hunter/gatherer thing on the basis that it was 'better' for you than 15000 years of progress.
So whenever you hear the words "Organic" think like a Scientist, not an Astrologer.
emitters.
Please note- I used to work in this field about 1.3 years ago, until I was laid off. There may have been some revolutionary advances since then (not bloody likely, but I'll caveat it anyway).
The biggest issue right now with OLEDs is that there are two ways of creating the light- front emitting and back emitting. Either way you dice it you've got a non transparent ITO pad that cuts out your light- but Front Emitting fixes this by emitting thru the glass into your eyeballs.
Unfortunately, ITO is shiny... which means you have to knock down the glare to the point that it really looks black. That means - believe it or not- they use a polarizer! So 75% of the light generated by a pixel is 'wasted' burning thru a polarizer.
That also means they need 4x more brightness out of the little buggers, too.
There are additional technologies for mixing light and other ways of filtering. Some companies are getting around the small patterning issues by using 'white light' (like a laptop) and then slapping a CFA (colour filter array) over the surface to get your RGBs. Which once again gets you into the same issues as LCDs.
Give it time. The knowledge and technology is coming along (or at least was)...
I believe it was a 15" white OLED panel.
Funny thing was every evening they would take down the panel and put up another one in it's place.
Literally they were driving the thing so hard it would burn out in less than 24 hours at the convention... my coworkers were laughing their ass off as they read the 'marketing specs' that this panel could 'provide'.
They could have a very poor blue colour coordinate in order to get the desired luminance.
Blue has been a very sticky colour to work on requiring some pretty exotic materials.
You can do temporal dithering on an LCD to get your 'intermediate' value pixels somewhere in the middle of the two. I've seen it done on high end IBM LCD displays.
Also there is a limit to how small you can make an LCD and still have a sufficiently response time (also how large, too). OLEDs will not have this limitation.
I know that feeling. At a certain company I used to work at some 95% were pulled off of everything else to work on OLED.
The problem is, of course, that no one would foot the bill for testing. So people would make a compound, coat it, test it for a couple of hours... but there were a million things that could have been done wrong to make the item fail. But they always expect OLEDs to behave like certain analog chemicals they've made.... and thus they never make any real progress.
Kodak released a digital camera with an OLED and I believe professional one as well.
Cell phones have had OLEDs for some time.
Radio (car) manufacturers have had OLED displays as well.
Apple would be 4th place at best....
"OLED display responses are 1,000 times faster than liquid crystal displays (LCDs), thus enabling greater resolution."
Perhaps it's related to superman flying backwards around the world fast enough to reverse time so the pixels shrink to their infant state...
Caption under the picture of the OLED display on Chosun.com reads:
"Samsung Electronics unveiled the world's largest 21-inch organic light emitting diode (OLED) display"
How can it be the world's largest 21-inch OLED display, aren't all 21-inch displays 21 inches?
Looks interesting though.
There's an OLED display in that picture??
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
According to this IEEE pdf document
Seiko Epson, using inkjet printing, unveiled a 35-inch (88-cm) prototype full-color OLED display in May-- the industry's largest OLED screen. Seiko Epson says it will be able to produce large OLED TV panels using this technology after improving its OLED materials and extending their lifetime.
karma : former act as leading to inevitable results
One feature of OLED's is that they are relatively easy to make. All you need is an n-doped Si substrate. You just use a dropper and drop a solution of Poly-Phynelene-Vinylene or whatever (dissolved in Acetone or something) and then even it out by spinning it. The solvent evaporates and the residual PPV+Si forms a diode! Can be done in 10 mins. The photoluminescence spectra of these OLED's is a topic of interest in research today, and people are trying to apply delayed PL models to it.
l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
Great! I'll be able to go and pick up my next TV in my flying car!
You must think in Russian.
Yup!
:(
Unfortunately it just doesn't go the distance with lifetime
I remember doing that for grins and just not even spin coating it, heh.... 9 volt battery and poof- light!
Who do people talk about things and 'call press' when THEY DON'T HAVE ANY BLOODY PICTURES!?!?
Where's my free iPod!? Until then, I'll settle for a kiss...
then in my opinion it's useless, I have absoloutely no interest in this kind of display - picture quality is just un-acceptable on LCD's and plasma, don't see why it will be different for this.
Man--today's moderators either have no sense of humor or they're totally pissed about my comments on RMS. [in my best Eric Cartman voice] Bunch of naive communist hippies....
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Racist! RAAAACIIIIIIIST!!!!
along with my gf
Yeah right.
Exactly, I remember doing some Surface-Photovoltage & PL measurements on PPV over a 5K-300K range during my masters' days. I kind of lost touch with that line of work, but it was interesting to see semiconductor like activity in materials which had no business having bands. Just that these polymers are so long that molecular orbitals delocalosed over appreciable length scale can do the trick also. I saw a discreet jump in both, probably due to the dominance of inter-chains over intra-chain excitons causing a new recombination process.Kind of lost touch with the research in that area after I graduated, though...
l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand