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)
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!
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!
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
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.
It's 1920x1080 - the quoted pixel count is for each red, green and blue element.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pete, this is 1995, here. We want our lame attempt at humor back.
-- Boycott Shell
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.
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 :)
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.
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....
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.
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
Samsung Electronics unveiled the world's largest 21-inch organic light emitting diode (OLED) display...
Hmm... Maybe I should call Guinness; I might just have the world's heaviest 8-ounce potato!
The monitor or the babe?