Slashdot Mirror
Sony Shows Off Flexible OLED Screens At CES
An anonymous reader writes "Sony's stand at CES had a small area set aside for flexible OLED screens, along with three mock-ups of possible OLED devices (including one stunning ultra-portable with no hinge and a single display for both screen and keyboard). There was also a working OLED screen being bent back and forth while playing a video clip. Does this mean roll-up, low-power colour screens will soon hit the market? Not unless OLED prices come down — Sony's stunning XEL-1 OLED TV costs $2,500, but only has an 11in screen ..."
...And if you use it to watch pirated movies then it will curl up and die on you!
I can't buy Sony anything; once bitten, twice shy. Never again will Sony have the chance to fuck me over like that.
along with three mock-ups of possible OLED devices
I.e., lies. But what do you expect from sociopaths who would install rootkits in music CD, especially install rootkits that contain copyrighted FOSS that they have no right to use?
And no, I will NOT let this rest. Sony owes me for the purchase of MS XP (since video drivers were no longer available for 98) and an Audigy sound card, as well as several hours of my time. I can no longer trust Sony and refuse to buy from them, and consider anyone who would be a Sony customer extremely stupid and short sighted.
Not unless OLED prices come down
You can count on it. In five years an OLED screen may well be a couple of bucks.
Free Martian Whores!
Yeah but if an 11 in^2 is $2500 and most folks are 2 m^2 in surface area, it would cost about $17,875 for the displays alone and at that point would be pretty skin tight, more like a leotard than a cloak.
I'd be happy to see an invisible tie so I could wear that and get one over on the man, or randomly turn it from invisible to a disturbing picture for microseconds to mess with friends and co-workers.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
TV content stays the same quality; it's your taste that's changing. A five-year-old will love pretty much any trash you put in front of her; a fifty-year-old is either (a) still in love with the same stuff she saw when she was five, or (b) watching on a much more complicated level, and requires far more meaning and technical skill in their content.
The fashion changes, but the target demographic remains the same - gullible people who are easy to convince to spend money.
egypt urnash minimal art.
Instead of pulling down the whitescreen for a TV projector from a roll, you actually roll down the TV itself - flexible screen comlpete with black backing and polymer based circuitry. 10 years I reckon before these are in the shops.
Have you checked the quality of old TV content lately. It is quite bad and predictable. Just because your getting Old you fail to see that.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Now Anonymous Coward is going to run around the internet shouting "Will it BEND??"
You can be completely in the right and yet still post something that will attract people with poor emotional control. In fact, let me add, on some subjects the more right you are the more hate mail you will get. It's always seemed to me that "flamebait" is a legacy moderation from the early days of the internet. It covers everything from "holds divergent opinions from some people" to "complete and utter asshole". But nowadays it's mostly (IMNSHO) used by fanboys to defend their obsession with one bit of plastic covered electronics over another.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Also at the show were examples of Samsungs prototype transparent OLED screens. It offers another way to "put yourself in the picture" http://www.oled-info.com/files/images/Samsung_Transparent_OLED_Ces_2009.jpg and http://www.oled-info.com/files/images/Samsung_Transparent_OLED_Ces_2009_2.jpg
a fifty-year-old is either (a) still in love with the same stuff she saw when she was five, or (b) watching on a much more complicated level, and requires far more meaning and technical skill in their content.
Dear Sir,
I wish to complain in the strongest possible terms about your use of the feminine pronoun "she". Some of my best male friends are 50, and only a few of them are transvestites.
Yours faithfully, Brigadier Sir Charles Arthur Strong (Mrs.)
P.S. That my mother made me wear ribbons in my hair when I was five is nobody's business.
A few points about OLED:
1) The optimal solution right now is flourescent blue combined with PHOLED red and green (phosphorescent). It's unclear right now how much PHOLED is being used in Sony's sets.
PHOLED is important primarily for power consumption which is why OLED screens are showing up more frequently in mobile devices. Nokia recently mandated that their suppliers have supply capability for OLED. Samsung is the major proponent of using PHOLED although LG and others are on board with materials+royalty contracts in place.
2) Samsung's recent statements about larger screen sizes (30"+) being far into the future seem to be due to two issues. First, although current LCD lines can be relatively easily retrofitted to produce OLED panels, production capacity is just starting to be scaled.
Second, and probably more importantly, the major LCD panel manufacturers have a major investment to be paid off in the later gen lines that recently came online.
3) The major issues facing OLED right now are packaging, lifetime and defect rate. The molecules degrade rapidly when exposed to oxygen/moisture so much tighter packaging is required (largely solved). Blue lifetime (both molecule sizes) was a problem in the past, 30k+ hours is now realistic. Defect rate applies to larger panels and is why 30"+ screens will be prohibitively expensive for now (Samsung has produced prototypes though so it isn't vaporware).
4) PHOLED can reach 100% EQE, flourescent around 25%. PMOLED is still viable but PHOLED should (imho) be the ideal molecule in the future. PHOLED deep blue with adequate lifetime is still the major hurdle, sky blue is ready to go.
5) OLED isn't just display. Lighting is arguably a larger market in the long run. Current specs are around 50lm/W but 100lm/W PHOLED has been successfully demonstrated. 150lm/W is pushing the envelope but not unrealistic.
GE is pushing its roll-to-roll initiative. Philips is aggressively heading toward commercial production. OLED lighting offers lower power consumption, temperature tunability, flexibility, flat panel replacement and fault tolerance (in the respect that a hole in the middle of the panel won't take out the entire structure). Universal Display recently received a grant with Armstrong to engineer tiles for commercial use.
6) OLED's appeal is not just a better display and flexibility; thickness (sub-1mm) and transparency are important factors for future designs and mass acceptance as a technology (Youtube has many videos about the Samsung prototypes).
7) The technology is way past the prototype stage, like where FED and SED have been stuck. Kodak, Dupont, BASF and every Japanese and Korean company you can name are involved (i.e. heavily investing) in OLED. Not to mention that the Chinese are going online this year in a big way. Will it replace LCD for display? Not any time soon. The question is not how many applications there are to make it viable, it's how soon these apps will gain critical mass in the marketplace.
Google for further information.
I have seen the Sony OLED TV (FYI, the resolution is quarter-1080p 960x540), but one thing I noticed is... the flicker during bright scenes. Now, I don't know if it was caused by the source (blu-ray player), the cabling (running 1080p24), or the scaler (both the size and framerate adjust). It was the light images, but I'm just somewhat concerned that we'll end up in the days of screens that flicker again. (Nothing's more annoying that someone who has their CRT set to 60Hz refresh).
I'm thinking it's just a scalar issue, but I've seen it on some of the OLED screens used in MP3 players...
Not sure why you're modded flamebait - I feel like as I've gotten older there's a lot more TV shows that I actually like. Characters are more complex, shows tend to be more serial than episodic with plotlines extending over the course of a season. Also because there are more channels you get things more tailored to specific tastes. Shows like "Dexter" or "The Shield" or even BSG would not have made it in the 70's or 80's.
Don't forget there is a difference of getting older and getting old.
Get older and gaining experience is a good thing.
Getting old and closing your mind to new ideas is a bad thing.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
TV technology ->+
TV content -<+
What the hell does that even mean?
Bow-ties are cool.
I know many close minded young people, and many open minded old people. I know some octogenarians that are so open minded they hire hookers, and some young people so close minded they'd call the cops if they saw somebody smoking a joint.
Free Martian Whores!
TV content stays the same quality; it's your taste that's changing.
TV's content varys considerably, and always has. Even between episodes of the same series; some of the old Star Treks were inspired ("City on the Edge of Forever" comes to mind), while some episodes were downright embarrasing.
In some ways TV content has gotten better since its "golden days". Back in the 1960s nobody would have dreamed of a comedy without a laugh track, while My Name Is Earl and that one doctor comedy has no laugh track. If you need a laugh track, your comedy isn't funny.
When cable was new, HBO was free, cable channels didn't censor, and cable channels didn't show commercials. Now Comedy Central removes all the funny parts from every movie it shows, and A&E cut "swear words" like "ass" and "shit" before breaking for a commercial. And which channel is it that shows movies with two dumbasses talking about the damned movie before and after commercials? What idiot came up with that idea?
And they didn't have those damned logos in the corner, don't get me started on the animated logos!
In many ways TV has gotten better. It's just that in the 1960s you might have three channels, while now you have dozens of channels of pure crap. When ESPN shows poker and pool you know there are too many sports channels. And who are the dimwits who watch "shopping channels?" And why do I have to pay for them?
Free Martian Whores!