• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

55" OLED!

V

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
7,375
Look's like we may be getting closer to the long delayed OLED revolution.

55" 1080P TV


350x378px-LL-ac375ca5_lg55oledtv.jpeg



http://www.techspot.com/news/47965-lg-to-ship-first-55-oled-tv-in-may-for-7928.html

55" weighing only 17 pounds is crazy!

Be prepared to cough up some serious dough though, projected $8,000.

Maybe we will see high resolution computer monitors that don't cost a fortune and that can replace CRT gaming smoothness within a few years.

LCD should be relegated to the budget display segment only.
 
You also have sony's new tech crystal led.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/247717/sony_shows_off_55inch_crystal_led_hdtv.html
They still got some things to improve in oled before it gets mass produced on televisions. Problem with oled is that it's first letter O = organic (LED) means that it has a much faster expiration date than current technologies aka they go bad a lot sooner due to degradation of the components. 4k might take 5 yrs to get anywhere near affordable for the enthusiast, aka people willing to drop a little bit more cash than the average consumer. Then you also got sharp teasing with their new 8k television.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/11/sharp-8k-super-hi-vision-lcd-4k-tv-and-freestyle-wireless-lcd-h/
 
Right now, someone, somewhere, is siting there thinking, it's still not thin enough. Holy hell at the less than 0.1ms response time comment though. Once that tech saturates the market, current displays will be the equivalent of cave paintings when it comes to motion.
 
Racer_J said:
Right now, someone, somewhere, is siting there thinking, it's still not thin enough. Holy hell at the less than 0.1ms response time comment though. Once that tech saturates the market, current displays will be the equivalent of cave paintings when it comes to motion.
Click to expand...

Ya, the only thing faster is CRT, the reason I am still using them for gaming and not inferior LCD. It will nice to have something that brings positive aspects to all aspects of a display.
 
Vega said:
Ya, the only thing faster is CRT, the reason I am still using them for gaming and not inferior LCD. It will nice to have something that brings positive aspects to all aspects of a display.
Click to expand...

Can it even be measured faster by any reasonable standard? Assuming the information I've read is correct it is 1/10th of a millisecond, eh?
 
todlerix said:
Can it even be measured faster by any reasonable standard? Assuming the information I've read is correct it is 1/10th of a millisecond, eh?
Click to expand...

CRT's don't really have a direct "response time" like an LCD. When the analog electrical signal is sent down the cable from the GPU, there is no "processing" going on nor any "switches" to flick, so CRT displays are considered virtually instantaneous.

It's all a moot point though versus OLED as they both are so fast, 100th's of a millisecond differences do not matter. What IS of a concern is will they make OLED not have any input lag or "electronic circuit delay". I think CRT will still win out on that since the signal is pure analog and OLED will use digital signals and circuitry which will introduce some input lag. Especially if they go crazy with scalars and what not.

The pixel response times will be great but there is still a large possibility of input lag with OLED. Whether they can keep the input lag down to below a reasonable 10ms is up in the air.
 
Ive put up with this crappy LCD technology long enough. I'd buy at $3000 probably. Can't come soon enough if it's as advertized.

Remember back in the early 2000s when all you had to do is buy any FD trinitron or Threegun Diamondtron and you were all good? No dozens of returns, comparos, compromises, pouring over reviews like LCDs. Just buy it. I hope OLED is like this.
 
Last edited:
Vega said:
What IS of a concern is will they make OLED not have any input lag or "electronic circuit delay". I think CRT will still win out on that since the signal is pure analog and OLED will use digital signals and circuitry which will introduce some input lag. Especially if they go crazy with scalars and what not.

The pixel response times will be great but there is still a large possibility of input lag with OLED. Whether they can keep the input lag down to below a reasonable 10ms is up in the air.
Click to expand...

I would guess it's going to be 15-32ms+ on TVs unless they intentionally change the rest of the hardware to cut down on input lag or try to eliminate it. Monitors likely won't be a concern as it's known to be a deciding factor on which monitor to get in the gaming and enthusiast communities. It will be a while before this starts to trickle into monitors though and I would guess the "large Display" monitor sector would see it first given the price premiums in that sector. Time will tell although this would be the opportunity to finally blend monitors and TVs (with obvious size limitations based on resolution) into being the same thing. However, why do that when you can just keep selling people two or more products. Back to input lag, it's important on consoles as well but, the general public jut buys whatever they want for a TV so I would expect input lag to stay par for the course unless someone tries to capitalize on it as a marketing point or it just happens to get lower by happenstance. Regardless, it will be interesting to see how all the new tech plays out.
 
We've all been reading about OLED for years now. I'm all for some advancement but I still guesstimate it'll be another 4-5 years before it'll be affordable tech.

My only hope is Sony with all this restructuring will push their Crystal LED tech to try and take back some of their lost market share which would force everyone else to innovate to keep up with them. Although with Sony's track record over the last 10 years it's doubtful.
 
ZoNe said:
Ive put up with this crappy LCD technology long enough. I'd buy at $3000 probably. Can't come soon enough if it's as advertized.

Remember back in the early 2000s when all you had to do is buy any FD trinitron or Threegun Diamondtron and you were all good? No dozens of returns, comparos, compromises, pouring over reviews like LCDs. Just buy it. I hope OLED is like this.
Click to expand...

Well, to the legions of low end CRTs running at 60 Hz in the corporate work space -- good riddance. But I'm grateful to still have a high end CRT set up appropriately for my enthusiast home machine. Too bad they could not find some way to keep making the good stuff.

Failure of SACD and DVD-Audio and proliferation of MP3, adoption of LCD technology with its inability to produce black and very narrow dynamic range and other issues, it's been a rough go for many in the enthusiast crowd.

I'm certainly also putting hope in OLED...
 
I thought Plasma also had a .0x ms response time :p? anyway exciting, looking forward to some bezeless oled monitors.
 
The fact that a 55" OLED is actually going on the market is excellent news. I remember seeing price tags in the $6000+ range for plasma TVs when they were first introduced to the mass market, which isn't far off of the $8000 OLED set of today if you look at inflation.

As I remember it, 2-3 years (as opposed to 4-5+) later and plasma sets were down in the $2-3,000 mark. Expensive, yes, but this pricing is right in line with the top tier pricing for LED technology today.

Also, once they iron out the bugs and demand (hopefully) kicks in, OLED should be a relatively simple and cheap(er) technology to produce when compared to LED.

Plus, over the past several years TV manufacturers have been trying to differentiate themselves through HD, 3D, and "smart" capability. Now that sets are once again looking more and more the same these days, I believe that the timing is right for them to get serious about the next big thing. It looks like OLED may finally be it.

As for Sony's Crystal LED display, I love it, but I do not see it coming to market for a long time. Sure, LED technology is old news by now, but the production costs of producing the number of individual (tiny) LEDs required for the Crystal display is staggering in today's market. We would need to see some serious progress in LED production techniques, effecting reduced LED production costs, before that display even becomes an option, $8000 or otherwise, in my opinion.
 
Anyone know how long they can run before they burn out? I know I was reading about OLED several years back and that researchers were having issues with the blue burning out 2x as fast as the other 2 colors. Just curious how many hours they're at now.
 
Chimay said:
Anyone know how long they can run before they burn out? I know I was reading about OLED several years back and that researchers were having issues with the blue burning out 2x as fast as the other 2 colors. Just curious how many hours they're at now.
Click to expand...

There are still issues. Buying an OLED TV is definitely not a piece of equipment that will last with regular use for a decade like LCD or CRT's could.

Most manufacturers I think are shooting for a 3-5 year life span. I guess they figure someone would want to buy new tech after that amount of time anyways.
 
Vega said:
Ya, the only thing faster is CRT, the reason I am still using them for gaming and not inferior LCD. It will nice to have something that brings positive aspects to all aspects of a display.
Click to expand...

Actually CRT is slower than the OLED specifications. When you light up a CRT phosphor it then goes into a decay curve for a few hundred microseconds. The RGB lines are for typical P22 computer monitor Phosphor:


dp104-decay.gif
 
Chimay said:
Anyone know how long they can run before they burn out? I know I was reading about OLED several years back and that researchers were having issues with the blue burning out 2x as fast as the other 2 colors. Just curious how many hours they're at now.
Click to expand...

LG actually has a decent solution for this.

They are using White OLED, with small Red, Green, Blue filters on them. So all the colors are equally robust.

IMO this makes the LG set more desirable. AFAIK Samsung is going with traditional colored OLEDs (with weaker blue).

I expect Samsung will undercut LG on pricing. So price or durability?
 
Vega said:
There are still issues. Buying an OLED TV is definitely not a piece of equipment that will last with regular use for a decade like LCD or CRT's could.

Most manufacturers I think are shooting for a 3-5 year life span. I guess they figure someone would want to buy new tech after that amount of time anyways.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that the lifespan of the set is a bit better than 5 years. Even so its first generation OLED tech , give it 2 or 3 years and the lifespan will continue to grow.

The biggest issue with OLED was mass production. Now that mass production will start , more can be done to curtail the problems inherit with the technology. First generation plasma's weren't even high def , had lifespans less than 5 year (although I know of a first generation Plasma that is sitting in home theater electronics store that's been running for over 7 years everyday just about 12-14 hours a day and it has yet to die).

LG is taking a very important step by offering OLED at a reasonable price range , at a great size of 55 inches and with passive 3D. Personally I'll wait a few years and let the technology mature but right now its incredible to see this tech actually being released for the general public in TV size.
 
Snowdog said:
Actually CRT is slower than the OLED specifications. When you light up a CRT phosphor it then goes into a decay curve for a few hundred microseconds. The RGB lines are for typical P22 computer monitor Phosphor:
Click to expand...

True, phosphor's do have some decay time but we are talking micro-seconds. Once you get into that realm the point becomes kinda moot. One nice thing that OLED should not have is phosphor glow that CRT's have when you display a light colored object on a black background.

I find this interesting:

CRT
Further information: Cathode ray tube
Pros:

High dynamic range (up to around 15,000:1),[1] excellent color, wide gamut and excellent or low black level (depending on CRT display settings).
No native resolution; the only display technology capable of true multisyncing (displaying many different resolutions and refresh rates without the need for scaling).
No input lag
No ghosting and smearing artifacts during fast motion due to sub-millisecond response time, and impulse-based operation.
Near zero color, saturation, contrast or brightness distortion
Allows the use of light guns/pens.
Excellent viewing angle

Cons:

Large size and weight, especially for bigger screens (a 20-inch (51 cm) unit weighs about 50 lb (23 kg)).
Relatively high power consumption at high brightness and contrast levels and fast scan rates.
Generates a considerable amount of heat when running.
Geometric distortion caused by variable beam travel distances but fortunately, almost no distortion in the current and/or high-end CRT monitor (not TV) only.
Can suffer screen burn-in
Produces noticeable flicker at low refresh rates.
Apart from televisions, CRT displays are normally only produced in 4:3 aspect ratio (though some widescreen CRT monitors, notably Sony's GDM-FW900, do exist).
Hazardous to repair/service
Color displays cannot be made in sizes smaller than 7 inches. Maximum size for direct-view displays is limited to about 40 inches due to practical and manufacturing restrictions (a CRT display of this size can weigh about 300 pounds).

LCD
Further information: LCD and LCD TV
Pros:

Very compact and light
Low power consumption, generally speaking. On average, 50-70% less energy is consumed than CRT monitors.[2]
No geometric distortion.
Little or no flicker depending on backlight technology.
Not affected by screen burn-in (though an analogous but less severe phenomenon known as image persistence is possible).
Can be made in almost any size or shape.
No theoretical resolution limit

Cons:

Limited viewing angle, causing color, saturation, contrast and brightness to vary, even within the intended viewing angle, by variations in posture.
Bleeding and uneven backlighting in some monitors, causing brightness distortion, especially toward the edges.
Smearing and ghosting artifacts during fast motion caused by slow response times (2-8 ms) and sample-and-hold operation.
Only one native resolution. Displaying other resolutions either requires a video scaler, lowering perceptual quality, or display at 1:1 pixel mapping, in which images will be physically too large or won't fill the whole screen.
Fixed bit depth. 8-bit S-IPS panels can display 16 million colors and have significantly better black level, but are expensive and have slower response time.
Input lag
Dead pixels may occur either during manufacturing or through use.
In a constant-on situation, thermalization may occur, which is when only part of the screen has overheated and therefore looks discolored compared to the rest of the screen.
Unacceptably slow response in low temperatures.
Not all LCD displays are designed to allow easy replacement of the backlight.
Cannot be used with light guns/pens.

Plasma
Further information: Plasma display
Pros:

High contrast ratios (1,000,000:1 static or greater,) excellent color, and low black level.
Sub-millisecond response time
Near zero color, saturation, contrast or brightness distortion. Excellent viewing angle.
No geometric distortion
Highly scalable, with less weight gain per increase in size (from less than 30 in (76 cm) wide to the world's largest at 150 in (3.8 m)).[3]

Cons:

Large pixel pitch, meaning either low resolution or a large screen. As such, color plasma displays are only produced in sizes over 32 inches (81 cm).
Image flicker due to being phosphor-based.
Glass screen can induce glare and reflections.
High operating temperature and power consumption. LCDs consume less power.[4]
Input lag
Relatively heavy weight
Only has one native resolution. Displaying other resolutions requires a video scaler, which degrades image quality at lower resolutions.
Fixed bit depth. Plasma cells can only be on or off, resulting in a more limited color range than LCDs or CRTs.
Can suffer image burn-in. This was a severe problem on early plasma displays, but newer models have incorporated methods to reduce the chance of accidental burn-in.
Relatively fragile; should only be transported, stored, and operated upright, as the glass screen can shatter under the display's own weight if not supported properly.
Cannot be used with light guns/pens.
Dead pixels are possible during manufacturing.


OLED
Further information: Organic light-emitting diode
Pros:

Excellent viewing angle
Very light weight
Excellent black level
No ghosting and smearing artifacts during fast motion due to sub-millisecond response time.
Wide gamut and vivid colors because no backlight is used.

Cons:

Can suffer screen burn-in.
Difficult and expensive to manufacture at the present time.
Organic materials used (as of 2011) are susceptible to decay over time, rendering the display unusable after some time.
Cannot be used with light guns/pens.
Click to expand...


LCD has dominated the last decade yet it has all of the worst image quality characteristics out of anything. Just because it is light, thin and uses lower power image quality and response time have fallen by the wayside.

Out of that whole list, OLED is the only thing that can beat CRT. But I do feel that list is incomplete and I will bet you there will be input lag with OLED, just as there has been with LCD's and Plasma that all have electronic processing. As long as they keep the input lag minimum though it shouldn't be too huge of a deal.
 
Vega said:
True, phosphor's do have some decay time but we are talking micro-seconds. Once you get into that realm the point becomes kinda moot. One nice thing that OLED should not have is phosphor glow that CRT's have when you display a light colored object on a black background.
Click to expand...

You said CRT was faster than OLED.

Phosphor decay is Hundreds of Microseconds.
OLED response is Tens of Microseconds.

Hundreds > Tens.
 
Snowdog said:
You said CRT was faster than OLED.

Phosphor decay is Hundreds of Microseconds.
OLED response is Tens of Microseconds.

Hundreds > Tens.
Click to expand...

In my original reference I was referring to the overall display responsiveness. But yes, "pixel" response times are slightly faster on OLED versus CRT, but like I said the speed on both are so quick the point it moot.

Hundreds of microseconds with zero input lag = CRT

Tens of microseconds with unknown milliseconds of input lag = OLED

So CRT might still be the best for extreme FPS gaming.

I guarantee you that OLED with modern electronic circuitry will have measurable input lag like LCD and Plasma.

I do look forward to the OLED revolution though, thinner and much better picture than LCD with CRT like motion. It will be grand.
 
If OLED allows us to display 1080p @ 500hz via DisplayPort 1.2, I will forgive any other issues it might have :)
 
55" and above is where Plasma screens take over from LCD, mostly due to backlight issues at that size. It costs almost the same to make a 32" screen as it does a 55". Few people will be willing to spend $3000 on a 32", regardless of how good it is. Marketing these against the higher end screens will allow companies to at least not make a loss during the first generation.
 
8k really isnt bad for this if its as good as its made out to be. I remember selling a 50 inch plasma for 18k. I cant wait till I can get somthing slim with crt quality. to bad thin crt's got sued out of existence .
 
Vega said:
I
I guarantee you that OLED with modern electronic circuitry will have measurable input lag like LCD and Plasma.
Click to expand...

There are LCDs with no measurable input lag. Obvious the same could be done for OLEDs.
 
OLED naturally had the potential to be cheaper to start with because of the raw lack of physical material needed. It's just been more difficult to 'tack' down a proper development method because the parts are incredibly small.

So the mention of the 50" $15k plasma is not too surprising. EDIT: As they were quite bulky to start with.

You cannot quote me on this but i believe LCD's are cheaper than Low end CRT's at the same resolution / size, not even counting inflation, its just the physical lack of materials needed and perfected manufacturing processes.

Theoretically we will be seeing disposable oled newspapers in 20+ years, but whodafudge really knows.
 
Last edited:
Vega said:
.

I find this interesting:




LCD has dominated the last decade yet it has all of the worst image quality characteristics out of anything. Just because it is light, thin and uses lower power image quality and response time have fallen by the wayside.
.
Click to expand...

And it can be commoditized to like $40 to make and $100 to sell and shipped around the world 100 units a pallet. Never was a decent CRT below $400. Stupid and vain consumers played a part in CRT to LCD transition but the makers really pushed it with price.

One more thing that can not be overlooked is perfect convergence since 90% of users don't care about motion in their office working on Word. Cheap Shadow Masks they used had horrible convergence and even high end AGs faded. For the office, cheaper & perfect convergence LCD is a no brainer when combined with the aesthetic virtues you mention.
 
Last edited:
Display transition/decay times:

PDP UV excited phosphor

  • 9 ms for blue, 17 ms for green
CRT electron excited phosphor

  • ~1 ms
OLED

  • single digit microsecond FWIR
PSBP

  • 100-400 microseconds


According to the specs offered by a website the 55EM9600 has an "operating consumption" of 265 W with a maximum brightness of 1000 cd/m2. 265 W for 1000 cd/m2 would be a good result but it could refer to the default luminance. Either way power consumption is the first thing on my mind.


Digital Viper-X- said:
is there a pixel size limitation that causes manufactures to start with 55"?
Click to expand...


55" cuts nicely from the 8G sheet and provides the best margin. This model is apparently 4K so there are no pixel dimension limitations - expect smaller models to be announced later.
 
Some difficulties involved with OLED:

1. Low production yields leading to very high panel costs and much higher end-product cost.
2. High number of pixel defects even in panels deemed to be 'acceptable'. It is difficult to justify charging someone a hefty premium for OLED and in the same breath having to inform them that they should expect an exponentially higher likelihood or number of pixel defects. Hand picking a limited number of perfect panels for demo is one thing, scaling this to mass production levels when there simply are so few perfect panels available is a completely different story.
3. Lack of stability in RGB OLED systems. Rapid calibration drift requires either expensive built-in systems to try and mitigate drift or re-calibration intervals we feel most end users would find unacceptable compared to other available technologies.
4. While we feel OLED technology has a very promising future in professional applications we feel white OLED based systems could potentially prove to be preferred over RGB OLED based systems. This is a bit of an unanswered question as far as I am concerned and many arguments can be made for/against both variations.
5. Even the best OLED based systems leave you with a product lifespan that is nearly half (or even worse) than many of the LCD based alternatives currently on the market. This is not a deal-killer for OLED, but it is something that needs to be reflected in the price or at the very least kept in consideration for/by the end users. Even at the same price your long term cost of ownership could be much higher for OLED if you have to buy 2 for every 1 LCD based alternative.
6. OLED undoubtedly gives you great black level performance, but maximum peak white luminance capabilities can be lacking for many applications. Low peak white luminance coupled with the glossy OLED screen surface can make it difficult to use outside of well controlled lighting environments (so perhaps good in post, maybe not so much onset or in the field).
7. Most OLED has very little perceptible off-axis contrast drop, which is great, but color shift is an issue that in many OLED solutions I personally find more noticeable than some high-end LCD based solutions. This could prove problematic in some viewing environments.

I think it is important to note that I don't think any of the above are show-stoppers for OLED, but they are considerations that need to be weighed carefully. The technology will improve with respect to both performance and production yields. Pricing will also improve over time as these challenges are met. At the point we feel we can introduce an OLED based solution with performance/quality that is worth what we would need to charge for it you can be sure that we will bring it to market. Until we can meet that basic criteria we won't release such a solution.

Sorry for the long response to such a concise question, but it is one we receive often so I wanted to provide some detail on my thoughts on this topic.

Bram Desmet
FSI (Flanders Scientific, Inc.)
www.FlandersScientific.com
 
That is 5 month old info, albeit from a "3rd party" professional display company. I don't think anyone is doubting that there are technical hurdles to overcome for OLED.

Nothing wrong with being excited about it though.
 
ZoNe said:
Ive put up with this crappy LCD technology long enough. I'd buy at $3000 probably. Can't come soon enough if it's as advertized.

Remember back in the early 2000s when all you had to do is buy any FD trinitron or Threegun Diamondtron and you were all good? No dozens of returns, comparos, compromises, pouring over reviews like LCDs. Just buy it. I hope OLED is like this.
Click to expand...

yeah. no bleeding, dead pixels, color banding...I mean I never really paid attention to any display specs until I was buying my first LCD but it seems like buying a CRT came down to size/weight and contrast. If you bought a Sony, you were in a great shape no matter what (well, I did have some weird spot on mine but after an exchange we attributed it to some local conditions. happened only with that one model).
 
Inu said:
That is 5 month old info, albeit from a "3rd party" professional display company. I don't think anyone is doubting that there are technical hurdles to overcome for OLED.

Nothing wrong with being excited about it though.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't exactly call 5-months "old info" when they have been working on OLED for a decade. ;)
 
sadbuttrue said:
Evil patents.
Click to expand...

It wasn't patents that killed SED, that dispute was wrapped up rather quickly. It looks like the official reason was it was simply impossible to produce it cheap enough.

Digital Viper-X- said:
so, is Sonys Crystal LED a better solution? better yields? less defects? etc
Click to expand...

It is 6 million individual LEDs. It would be more durable than OLED, but it would make OLED look inexpensive. It is something that always could be done, but never did, and likely never will make (economic) sense (see SED).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top