LG finally launches the first large-screen OLED TV

Now the question is when will they bring first PC displays. How many years did it take for LCD after the first TV came out?
 
can't wait for one big wrap around screen like in the movie Gamer.
 
Leopardi said:
Now the question is when will they bring first PC displays. How many years did it take for LCD after the first TV came out?
Click to expand...

Not sure about LCD, but in 1997 Fujitsu introduced the first 42" plasma, which retailed for $15000 USD (5K more than the 55" LG OLED). 15 years later, a 42" plasma can be bought for little as $350 USD.

If I had to guess, around 5 years from now. That is unless someone found a way to drastically cut cost and increase yield, which is possible since OLED can be printed using inkjet printer.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20101112/187371/
 
Existing 4K TV sets are LCD-based. But according to some purists, OLED offers a richer quality display so might be the better option for 55in screens.
Click to expand...

i dont think so, i rather take the 4k lcd over 1080p OLED anyday.
 
TroyX said:
i dont think so, i rather take the 4k lcd over 1080p OLED anyday.
Click to expand...

Are you using it as a PC monitor or why would you think that 4K is any better than 1080p in a small 55" size? You'd have to be watching like half a meter away to see the benefits of 4K.
 
rocket733 said:
Why settle? Sony is showing off a 4k oled
Click to expand...

Can't trust Sony to release anything new. They sold off FED and it seems they have abandoned CLED. Now they are taunting people with OLED, which has no price or release date. They also haven't stated how they developed the tech or any plans for mass production. It seems they are just trying to show off. A vain attempt if you ask me.

The fact of the matter is Sony is no longer the brand it once was. Most of their TVs are outsourced and are of inferior quality. In fact year on year, they've lost to Panasonic and Samsung.
 
Last edited:
How so? When I last checked, the HX series are just as good as other top end LED TV sets and they're actually quite affordable for what they are. Which is basically the problem with all TV manufacturers: there's basically no differentiation between TV sets unless you're especially nitpicky.
 
Their HX series are good but vastly inferior to Panasonic and Samsung plasma in terms of image quality (and its terms of value for money). Sony doesn't own or manafacture their own panel and they've stopped contacting plasma panels from Japanese PDP OEMs long time ago (bet they are regretting that now).

If image quality is of paramount importance, you wouldn't touch LED-LCD (regardless of how bright the room is). But if we were to compare Sony LED-LCD to other LED-LCD, there are plenty of cheaper alternatives that provide comparable image quality.

PS: Samsung provide provide 3D color , 10 point gamma and grayscale calibration. So any errors can be adjusted to maximize the TV's potential. Sony doesn't even design their own video processors. The so called BRAVIA engine is pure marketing. The chips are provided by 3rd party OEMs. In fact there's nothing SONY and about SONY TVs (except maybe the design, bet that's outsourced too).
 
Last edited:
It all depends on if you can see the picture elements (pixels) from your preferred viewing distance.
 
UHD LCD TVs will kill OLED. I can't see it going any other way when LCD TVs killed plasma TVs despite plasma's better image quality (and if you think that plasma is not dead when its market share is less than 15% and dropping, you're in denial). In the consumer market, lower cost is ten times, a hundred times more important than higher quality, every time.

You'll see, from the beginning, UHD TVs that are bigger and cheaper than OLEDs, and it will be pure murder on OLEDs.
 
Awesome. Can't wait till these can be found at my local frys.
 
evilsofa said:
UHD LCD TVs will kill OLED. I can't see it going any other way when LCD TVs killed plasma TVs despite plasma's better image quality (and if you think that plasma is not dead when its market share is less than 15% and dropping, you're in denial). In the consumer market, lower cost is ten times, a hundred times more important than higher quality, every time.

You'll see, from the beginning, UHD TVs that are bigger and cheaper than OLEDs, and it will be pure murder on OLEDs.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is that simple.

In a lot of cases Plasmas were cheaper than LCDs.
Image quality is debatable. A lot of people prefer the picture of an LCD over Plasma.
Plasma degrades over time, LCD doesn't, etc.

For the most part LCD is just better.
 
sharknice said:
In a lot of cases Plasmas were cheaper than LCDs.
Click to expand...
Not for comparable models. Plasmas have been consistently more expensive if you consider comparable models and features.
sharknice said:
Image quality is debatable. A lot of people prefer the picture of an LCD over Plasma.
Click to expand...
Maybe debatable now, but plasma, especially in the early LCD days, was definitely better. More like the LCDs of today. It had crisper blacks, whiter whites, better color contrast and no background bleeding.
sharknice said:
Plasma degrades over time, LCD doesn't, etc.
Click to expand...
LCDs also degrade over time (dead/stuck pixels etc) it just happens way slower, but yes, an LCD can easily outlast a plasma.

That all straightened out.
The big push for LCD/Plasma TVs was partly because HD came on to the scene. Manufacturers married HD to the new generation of TV signal.

4k is great and all, but without content, it will not really take off. So as kllrnohj said, for now an OLED HD TV is better. When there are some 20 plus 4k channels, then we can switch over to a 4k TV. That said, I am curious to see a side by side comparison of an HD show running on a 4k TV and an OLED TV. For me, that would be the real deciding factor.

Now to put on my cable provider cap and think out loud.
Think about this from this point of view, so now does it mean that I have to offer NBC on 3 channels??? I have SD, HD and 4k? that does not seem like a good idea. In this respect, I know that a lot of people still have SD TVs, so that market will not die.
I will kill the HD market and convert it into a 4k market.

The second issue is that 4k has 4 times the resolution of HD.... needless to say, (without any additional compression or what not) this also means that 4k will take up 4 times more bandwidth on my cable pipe than HD. So I will be in no rush to push it out.
 
Megalomaniac said:
Not for comparable models. Plasmas have been consistently more expensive if you consider comparable models and features.

Maybe debatable now, but plasma, especially in the early LCD days, was definitely better. More like the LCDs of today. It had crisper blacks, whiter whites, better color contrast and no background bleeding.

LCDs also degrade over time (dead/stuck pixels etc) it just happens way slower, but yes, an LCD can easily outlast a plasma.

That all straightened out.
The big push for LCD/Plasma TVs was partly because HD came on to the scene. Manufacturers married HD to the new generation of TV signal.

4k is great and all, but without content, it will not really take off. So as kllrnohj said, for now an OLED HD TV is better. When there are some 20 plus 4k channels, then we can switch over to a 4k TV. That said, I am curious to see a side by side comparison of an HD show running on a 4k TV and an OLED TV. For me, that would be the real deciding factor.

Now to put on my cable provider cap and think out loud.
Think about this from this point of view, so now does it mean that I have to offer NBC on 3 channels??? I have SD, HD and 4k? that does not seem like a good idea. In this respect, I know that a lot of people still have SD TVs, so that market will not die.
I will kill the HD market and convert it into a 4k market.

The second issue is that 4k has 4 times the resolution of HD.... needless to say, (without any additional compression or what not) this also means that 4k will take up 4 times more bandwidth on my cable pipe than HD. So I will be in no rush to push it out.
Click to expand...

In the early days Plasma didn't have native HD resolutions. They had something like 1024x700 and other weird, sub-HD resolutions. DLP was king for big screens and LCD was good for smaller screens.
 
Finally OLED is coming into its own. In a couple more years I'll actually be able to buy one of these bad boys.
 
TroyX said:
i dont think so, i rather take the 4k lcd over 1080p OLED anyday.
Click to expand...
I think 4K LCD is going to struggle against OLED unless the price gap is substantial. OLED has the advantage of immediacy - replace a 1080p LCD TV with a 1080p OLED and everything looks better right away; pure blacks and infinite contrast, more vibrant colours and less blurring.

(Just how powerful OLED's image quality draw is was rammed home to me when I bought a tablet with a OLED screen. Everyone I've showed it to comments right away on how impressive the screen is. That sort of impact will sell a lot of OLED TVs in stores.)

But 4K needs content to shine and that's going to take long time to happen. Look how long it took for the shift to HD to take place, and the payoff from SD>HD was much greater than HD>4K will be. And delivering 4K content will be tough. The bandwidth for satellite, DTT and IP streaming delivery just isn't there (cable may have an easier time, though).
 
sharknice said:
I don't think it is that simple.

In a lot of cases Plasmas were cheaper than LCDs.
Image quality is debatable. A lot of people prefer the picture of an LCD over Plasma.
Plasma degrades over time, LCD doesn't, etc.

For the most part LCD is just better.
Click to expand...
  • PDP is still cheaper than LCD (at least in the UK). Not sure about the US

  • Image quality is not up for debate. Plasma is still superior to LCDs (especially in back level, uniformity and motion resolution)

  • Everything degrades over time but plasma tend to have longer lifespan than LCD.
 
Megalomaniac said:
Not for comparable models. Plasmas have been consistently more expensive if you consider comparable models and features.
Click to expand...
That's not the case in the UK. The same maybe true in the US.





Megalomaniac said:
LCDs also degrade over time (dead/stuck pixels etc) it just happens way slower, but yes, an LCD can easily outlast a plasma.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence to suggest LCD can outlast a modern plasma. In fact there have reports of LCDs failing after 3 years of normal use due to aggressive overdrive.

Megalomaniac said:
That all straightened out.
The big push for LCD/Plasma TVs was partly because HD came on to the scene. Manufacturers married HD to the new generation of TV signal.

4k is great and all, but without content, it will not really take off. So as kllrnohj said, for now an OLED HD TV is better. When there are some 20 plus 4k channels, then we can switch over to a 4k TV. That said, I am curious to see a side by side comparison of an HD show running on a 4k TV and an OLED TV. For me, that would be the real deciding factor.

Now to put on my cable provider cap and think out loud.
Think about this from this point of view, so now does it mean that I have to offer NBC on 3 channels??? I have SD, HD and 4k? that does not seem like a good idea. In this respect, I know that a lot of people still have SD TVs, so that market will not die.
I will kill the HD market and convert it into a 4k market.

The second issue is that 4k has 4 times the resolution of HD.... needless to say, (without any additional compression or what not) this also means that 4k will take up 4 times more bandwidth on my cable pipe than HD. So I will be in no rush to push it out.
Click to expand...

Viewing distance plays a massive role in image definition. ATM the most popular sizes are 32" and 40/42" and 4K will definitely will not benefit TVs that small.

OLED brings far more than higher res to the table. It can lead to transparent TVs, pure black and much wider colors thanks to stacked pixels. Simply put 1080p OLED is far superior to 4K LCD.
 
From my experience as an ISF calibrator, I can say that Plasmas is superior to LCD in almost every category.
If you goal is to have the image quality intended by the artist, Plasma is the way to go.

Do no get me wrong, that are some very good LCD sets in the market (Sharp Elite comes to mind) but I still find that high-end Plasma such as the Panasonic TC-P55VT50 provides better IQ (and at a lower price).

That being said, OLED seems very promising.
 
DrRamtop said:
I think 4K LCD is going to struggle against OLED unless the price gap is substantial. OLED has the advantage of immediacy - replace a 1080p LCD TV with a 1080p OLED and everything looks better right away; pure blacks and infinite contrast, more vibrant colours and less blurring.

(Just how powerful OLED's image quality draw is was rammed home to me when I bought a tablet with a OLED screen. Everyone I've showed it to comments right away on how impressive the screen is. That sort of impact will sell a lot of OLED TVs in stores.)

But 4K needs content to shine and that's going to take long time to happen. Look how long it took for the shift to HD to take place, and the payoff from SD>HD was much greater than HD>4K will be. And delivering 4K content will be tough. The bandwidth for satellite, DTT and IP streaming delivery just isn't there (cable may have an easier time, though).
Click to expand...

Add transparency on top and it will sell like hot cakes. When the TV is off, it'll blend to the background, which means people are likely to opt for larger sized models.
 
RadXge said:
From my experience as an ISF calibrator, I can say that Plasmas is superior to LCD in almost every category.
If you goal is to have the image quality intended by the artist, Plasma is the way to go.

Do no get me wrong, that are some very good LCD sets in the market (Sharp Elite comes to mind) but I still find that high-end Plasma such as the Panasonic TC-P55VT50 provides better IQ (and at a lower price).

That being said, OLED seems very promising.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately LCD TVs have takes a few steps back lately. The overall black level has increased by 1.5-2X and the panel quality has fallen to a point where excessive panel defects are considered normal. PWM induced trailing is also a widespread problem.

I've reviewed a 40" LCD (40C580) two years ago and it produced static black level of 0.03 cd/m2. Two years on, we have yet to review an LCD with such low black level. In fact one of the 2012 Samsung model (UE40ES6300) produced black level equivalent to a 2008 model (0.069 cd/m2)

Panasonic on the other hand managed to improve black level from 0.02 cd/m2 (2011) to 0.009 cd/m2 (2012). This year we are expecting 0.005 cd/m2 (just 0.002 shy from the Pioneer PDP-LX5090). Unlike the Pioneer model 4 years ago, consumers won't be forced to pay a premium.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/samsung-le40c580-le32c580-20100728791.htm
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/samsung-ue40es6300-ue46es6300-201211142326.htm
 
Last edited:
Nielo TM said:
Add transparency on top and it will sell like hot cakes. When the TV is off, it'll blend to the background, which means people are likely to opt for larger sized models.
Click to expand...

nec-curved-screen.jpg


What about these type of monitors, would they be even cheaper to produce since OLED can be twisted around like a piece of rubber? If these monitors were cheaper and more common, it would be a lot better than any eyefinity setup.
 
Nielo TM said:
Add transparency on top and it will sell like hot cakes.
Click to expand...

Some people fall for the strangest gimmicks.

A transparent TV/monitor would SUCK!

samsung-oled-transparent-screen.jpg


It should be obvious that seeing through your monitor would greatly reduce the quality of the image on your monitor.
 
And some people fail comprehend the technology. Samsung was demoing that unit to illustrate its transparency, which is currently at 40-50%. It's a remarkable achievement but it still has a long way to go.

In reality such displays will be equipped "Smart Glass". So when the display is active, the user would have the option to keep it transparent or block the light, thus disabling transparency.


787-window.jpg
 
Last edited:
Nielo TM said:
And some people fail comprehend the technology. Samsung was demoing that unit to illustrate its transparency, which is currently at 40-50%. It's a remarkable achievement but it still has a long way to go.

In reality such displays will be equipped "Smart Glass". So when the display is active, the user would have the option to keep it transparent or block the light, thus disabling transparency.


787-window.jpg
Click to expand...

Still a completely pointless, expensive gimmick that will only detract from image quality.

The real use for transparent displays is in Heads-Up-Displays. Not monitors/TVs.
 
Far from it. It'll finally help to brake the size barrier, which is still stuck at 40/42". Most houses in Europe and Asia are tiny in comparison to the US and I believe people would love the idea of blending the TV with the environment when inactive. After all who would want a massive 50/60" void dwarfing everything in the room?

mw-630-newhead.jpg


1296869076_3.jpg


samsungmstv8_1.jpg


Other uses include interactive windows, public displays, two-way display systems, volumetric displays, interactive medical displays etc.
 
Last edited:
Nielo TM said:
that too. Also it can be any shape (not just square or rectangular)
Click to expand...

A non-rectangular resolution would present an interesting challenge for desktop PC use, but it doesn't seem like anyone is interested. NEC made a heart-shaped LCD display in 2008, and all they could imagine for an actual use was speedometers and tachometers in cars. Something like a large oval-shaped monitor designed to match the field of vision might work if you approach it as a larger rectangular display for which many of the corner pixels don't exist.
 
specking of which, saw a program the other day showing just that. It looked like something out a Sci-Fi film.

PS:Such designs can also be used in phones (along with flexible displays). This decade we going to see some groundbreaking concepts and form factors thanks to OLED. Can't wait :)
 
The gaming market is pretty big and OLEDs will crush any LCD in that dept. There's crt-like input delay with OLEDs which is basically none and all of the other benefits were listed in earlier posts.

LCDs have been a dead technology since they were first released. They did everything worse than a CRT except they took up less space which has nothing to do with the picture being displayed. OLEDs solve the picture being garbage and things like that curved display is definitely the future. It's a direct win vs a CRT which has been in main stream use for the last ~30 years and based on technology from over a 100 years ago.
 
ShoeLace said:
The gaming market is pretty big and OLEDs will crush any LCD in that dept. There's crt-like input delay with OLEDs which is basically none and all of the other benefits were listed in earlier posts.
Click to expand...

CRT is a pure analogue display and OLED is pure digital. Although it is theoretically possible to create OLED display with lag comparable to CRT, it may not be the case in reality.

ShoeLace said:
LCDs have been a dead technology since they were first released. They did everything worse than a CRT except they took up less space which has nothing to do with the picture being displayed. OLEDs solve the picture being garbage and things like that curved display is definitely the future. It's a direct win vs a CRT which has been in main stream use for the last ~30 years and based on technology from over a 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

Actually LCD has many advantages: wider colour gamut (>100% NTSC), perfect definition (from corner to corner), flexible, superior ANSI contrast ratio (up to 4000:1), no blooming, no distortions, flicker free, comes in all sizes and shapes, supports advanced multi-monitor set-up, supports various form factors, cost (affordability), greener, low maintenance and has longer lifespan.
 
Actually LCD has many advantages: wider colour gamut (>100% NTSC), perfect definition (from corner to corner), flexible, superior ANSI contrast ratio (up to 4000:1), no blooming, no distortions, flicker free, comes in all sizes and shapes, supports advanced multi-monitor set-up, supports various form factors, cost (affordability), greener, low maintenance and has longer lifespan.
Click to expand...

My LCD isn't flexible. Is yours?

My trusty CRT was doing 1600x1200 @ 120hz and was flicker free for a number of years in the past. There were also no distortions or weirdness. It also cost me $60 and that was like 10 years ago. There was no back light bleeding, black was as perfect as you could hope for and it replicated colors exactly.

My trusty CRT was also able to scale down in resolution without it looking like a pile of garbage (comparing this to an S-IPS panel LCD which still looks awful at anything but native). This was necessary for playing certain games at a competitive level (Quake 2/3 @ 640x480 , etc.).

I don't really care about things like "comes in all shapes and sizes". How many LCDs do you use on a desktop that isn't either a square or a rectangle (same shapes as a CRT)? Size goes both ways too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top