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!
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
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 don't know Nash's theory, but what appears to be happening is that the different huge Asian conglomerates are each persuing different technologies. This is a relatively new thing in the TV market, and exposes a new layer of competition. Up until a few years ago, companies were mostly competing at the margins of features and price, and we had big, beautiful, feature-rich CRTs at remarkably low prices (and low margins for the manufacturers.)
Now, though, we see Sharp (for example) betting the ranch of LCDs, Toshiba and Canon going for broke on SEDs, Samsung and LG with these OLEDs, and other flogging plasma panels for all they're worth. Rather than competing on marginal features, they are all desperately competing in basic science and process engineering. It's amazing to watch, and I can imagine that the pressure on the development teams is intense -- because it's likely that all but one of these technologies will be abandoned when the winner is apparent.
I'm betting on SEDs, because they provide high quality, reasonable manufacturability, long life, and build on the best of current CRT technologies. OLEDs will rule if, in the end, it is possible to get the science to work -- I'm just not convinced yet that it is.
Thad Beier
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
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.