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)
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.
OLEDs have a lifespan of between 10000 and 50000 hours at the moment, I think it is the blue that has the lowest lifespan. Of course, the lifespans are a lot better than they were a couple of years ago!
Hopefully the shorter lives will be offset by the display being so much cheaper. Anyway, for computer displays most people would want to update the display after 5-7 years anyway, regardless of actual lifespan! 10000 hours is 3 years at 10 hours a day, or 6 years at 5 hours a day.
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.
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.
This is why the book is always better than the movie!
I'm not quite sure this counts as a review however since this is a one off prototype. How's this for an understatement:
"Making one is one thing, making many is another and then making them competitive with established screen technologies is a totally other ball game," Semenza said.
The real point of this article (which didn't make the summary for some reason, I wonder why?):
"However, the Samsung announcement is noteworthy because its 21-inch prototype OLED relies on amorphous silicon technology, a mature technology used in most LCDs on the market today"
So they can use the same fabs and substrates as the old LCDs. Cheaper and faster to market.
One more quote and then I'll stop I promise:
"However, Young also said today's OLED technology -- which averages 10,000 hours until it becomes half as bright -- still lags behind the 30,000- to 50,000-hour lifespans of today's large televisions."
By large televisions he must be talking about plasma or something because my CRT based monster will probably be able to throw electrons for the rest of my life (granted, some electronic component will wear out first but still). I'm always amazed at the inconveniences of CRTs. They just don't make them like they used to. All these modern inconveniances, why back in my day...
I don't think, Therefore I'm not.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
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 :)
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....
What's not impressive is that they tend to grow fainter with time. The article says 10,000 hours before they lose half their brightness... that's not very long, and I'm sure you'd notice the effect well before the 10,000-hour point. Elsewhere I read that this dimming is not even across the color range, and that the images get progressively more red. LCD displays are supposed to lose half their brightness in 30,000 hours, which is not that much better imo. That makes me wonder about CRTs. My Sony 500PS is pushing 7 years and still looks beautiful. The only difference I notice is that it takes a bit longer to warm up than when it was new. Ah, trusty old CRT! As long as I keep my big desk, I probably won't even be thinking about a new monitor before 2008. I know that "degradation with time" probably makes the salespeople happy, but I know that when I'm looking to replace my monitor, I'll be looking for something that doesn't have an obsolescense plan.