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)
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).
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!
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 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.
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. I started doing resesarch on OLEDs in 1995 before most people had ven heard about them. But *much* research has been focused on better blue materials and they've made great strides in lifetime.
However, that the Samsung demo image contains no discernable blue is very strange indeed. I have my doubts that it was left out unintentionally.
"Twenty-five signatures turns the most frightful stupidity into an opinion" -Kirkegaard
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
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.
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-
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.
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
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.
Whoops my bad. I've already seen 4 different laptops that use OLED screens in them- course they are one-off replacements...