LG OLED 15" Review

Lol black level "infinite".

EDIT: Yes i meant contrast ratio sorry.
 
Last edited:
That's the contrast ratio! I suppose you could say that the black level is infinitesimally small
 
wasn't OLED supposed to be affordable? I hear that this 15" is supposed to be $2500 and the 40" model is planned at $10,000. Are they just trying to offset R&D costs or are these actually expensive for them to produce?
 
wasn't OLED supposed to be affordable? I hear that this 15" is supposed to be $2500 and the 40" model is planned at $10,000. Are they just trying to offset R&D costs or are these actually expensive for them to produce?

I don't think once has anyone ever mentioned it would be affordable. In fact I can't see that happening now or even in 10 years.

Sony recently shut down and sold off its OLED factory / research center to Toshiba to make more LED-LCD tv's. If Sony has jumped ship and LG is pushing ahead its going to be even longer before we see this technology anywhere at a reasonable price.
 
Seriously? :)

Haven't encountered OLED fanboys yet? They are rather enamored with it. It is the absolute best display technology as far as they are concerned and only the evil LCD manufacturers are keeping it down.

wasn't OLED supposed to be affordable? I hear that this 15" is supposed to be $2500 and the 40" model is planned at $10,000. Are they just trying to offset R&D costs or are these actually expensive for them to produce?

Ya well, OLED has had a lot of problems. I was supposed to be cheap, available, long lasting, etc. There's been a lot of problems bringing it to market. The high cost is a combination of production difficulties, R&D being rolled in to the units (that always happens, it is just when you don't expect to sell many unit cost goes up) and so on.

It'll be some time before we see what OLED really can be produced for. I suspect it'll come down in price to meet or beat LCD, but who knows? It won't be cheap for some time yet, that much is for certain. Always the case with new technologies that until manufacturing is ramped up, problems are ironed out, and so on you have high costs.
 
I'd like to know the pixel structure of this OLED panel - if it's anything like seen on smaller displays for cell phones then forget it. It's annoying.
Secondly, if i paid that much money for a 15" TV i would assume a perfectly calibrated image out of the box. Like the XEL-1, it's way off. I hope that LG is offering control over R, G, B channels so that a bit of tuning is possible (i.e. i don't know what FPHD could adjust).

That being said, very nice display! :cool:
 
I'd like to know the pixel structure of this OLED panel - if it's anything like seen on smaller displays for cell phones then forget it. It's annoying.
Secondly, if i paid that much money for a 15" TV i would assume a perfectly calibrated image out of the box. Like the XEL-1, it's way off. I hope that LG is offering control over R, G, B channels so that a bit of tuning is possible (i.e. i don't know what FPHD could adjust).

That being said, very nice display! :cool:
Samsung is the only oled manufacturer that uses the non-standard pentile matrix to improve red/blue subpixel life (it's proprietary). LG and others use the normal RGB pattern afaik.
 
Last edited:
wasn't OLED supposed to be affordable? I hear that this 15" is supposed to be $2500 and the 40" model is planned at $10,000. Are they just trying to offset R&D costs or are these actually expensive for them to produce?

It is theoretically cheaper to produce as they are less complex to actually manufacture then LCDs in theory. However methods to cheaply mass manufacture large OLED screens (not mobile device sizes) are still in the R&D phase. That is why you are beginning to see an influx of consumer OLED screens on mobile devices (that don't carry extremely high premiums), while computer size (much less TV size) is non existent. OLEDs likely will be mainstream on mobile devices very soon, just not anything larger.
 
Let's see what comes first, OLED mainstream or Graphite processors mainstream.

I know this may seem far fetched but at this point I bet that 3D holographic projection will be available first to consumers before OLED will mature into a cheap product , large screen display product thats flexable and paper thin. Thats just how dead it is right now .. which is incredibly sad.
 
I know this may seem far fetched but at this point I bet that 3D holographic projection will be available first to consumers before OLED will mature into a cheap product , large screen display product thats flexable and paper thin. Thats just how dead it is right now .. which is incredibly sad.
Don't forget quantum computers.
 
I'd like to know the pixel structure of this OLED panel - if it's anything like seen on smaller displays for cell phones then forget it. It's annoying.
Secondly, if i paid that much money for a 15" TV i would assume a perfectly calibrated image out of the box. Like the XEL-1, it's way off. I hope that LG is offering control over R, G, B channels so that a bit of tuning is possible (i.e. i don't know what FPHD could adjust).

That being said, very nice display! :cool:

Yeah I really dislike the samsung oled displays for that reason too. The text looks funky. But if the lg's aren't like that and become cheaper I would buy one.
 
Back when OLED hype was new, it held promise of being cheap to manufacture because - unlike solid state LEDs - the organic LED material is flexible/soluble and thus could be printed onto a substrate. Of course this has turned out to be much easier said than done. I think most current OLED displays are manufactured with chemical vapour deposition, a much more costly process. Considering that there aren't any large-panel facilities currently ramping hard on OLEDs it's not at all surprising that these initial products are very expensive so I don't think that's representative of the technology as a whole.

I remain hopeful that all of the manufacturing problems will be solved and OLED will eventually become as cheap as it was originally thought to be. edit: printing is possible, it's just not as good as CVD right now. See here
 
Actually, the real reason behind the impractical-ness of OLED is the fact that it's RGB lifespan varies. It's impracticable. I can't remember the exact figures, but I know that Red, Green, and Blue have different lifespans, in other words your blue colors will die before your Red ones. Also, OLED has been considered GREEN, however, when projecting 'white' it takes up multiple folds of energy in comparison with standard LCD. That's why considerable R&D still needs to be invested into finding a solution for longer lasting OLED.

I wouldn't suggest anyone jump onto the OLED wagon soon, even when it becomes readily available. Do your research first. Don't take my word for anything I've said. Google it and do your own research, these are facts haha.
 
I remember reading that one of the components needed for cheaper mass manufacturing of OLEDs - the inkjet sprayable dyes used to produce the actual colors were just going into mass manufacturing. Once the OLEDs call be made using inkjets, things should start getting cheaper faster. Of course, for now, the target market is mobile displays. Next year, samsung is planning to try ~4.5" AMOLED screens with relatively high resolution (> iphone 4 res).

Luckily for all of us, there is a target demographic that can take the R&D hit and help build mass manufacturing before it trickles down to TVs and then (much later) to affordable monitors. Still a few years out for an affordable monitor, I would think.
 
Actually, the real reason behind the impractical-ness of OLED is the fact that it's RGB lifespan varies. It's impracticable. I can't remember the exact figures, but I know that Red, Green, and Blue have different lifespans, in other words your blue colors will die before your Red ones. Also, OLED has been considered GREEN, however, when projecting 'white' it takes up multiple folds of energy in comparison with standard LCD. That's why considerable R&D still needs to be invested into finding a solution for longer lasting OLED.

I wouldn't suggest anyone jump onto the OLED wagon soon, even when it becomes readily available. Do your research first. Don't take my word for anything I've said. Google it and do your own research, these are facts haha.

OLED is hardly the first display technology to suffer uneven color degradation. A lot of materials research has been invested into increasing blue OLED lifespan and not without some significant results. Heck, Dupont already has inkjet-able blue up to "34000 hours". That's already longer than most people use their sets before throwing them out. Yes, the overall color will change over time but not nearly as fast or severely as you are implying. Even if the first few years of OLED displays have particularly short blue lifespans, a little re-calibration every once in a while should be enough to keep the problem in check for years.

As for the roughly-tripled power consumption of lighting all three subpixels for white, I think you're looking at it the wrong way. OLED can turn un-needed subpixels off whereas only the most expensive LCD sets can turn off parts of their backlight, and certainly not to subpixel resolution. Once more OLED sets are in the market I wouldn't be surprised if their power consumption figures are better than LCD.
 
34000 hours sounds good on paper but the problem is, similar to a plasma, an OLED display will gradually lose its brightness rather than just die on you after 34000 or whatever hours. So if it takes 34000 hours for blue OLED it to lose all its brightness, it takes lets say 340 hours for it to lose 1%. 8 hours per day and that's only 42 days. All just rough estimates of course but you know what I mean. Perhaps a 1% difference wouldn't be noticeable but sooner or later static bright images like an icon on the taskbar etc would "burn-in" permanently. Plasmas have improved, their declared lifetime is over 120 000 these days and yet burn-in is still an issue for PC use and will probably never get solved completely. That's my main worry with OLED, are they ever going to be suitable for computer usage instead of TVs only?
 
How much does this ink cost? Think they spend $50 on ink for a 24" screen? What does the rest cost, $50? Double the price for MSRP. Not bad.
 
34000 hours sounds good on paper but the problem is, similar to a plasma, an OLED display will gradually lose its brightness rather than just die on you after 34000 or whatever hours. So if it takes 34000 hours for blue OLED it to lose all its brightness, it takes lets say 340 hours for it to lose 1%. 8 hours per day and that's only 42 days. All just rough estimates of course but you know what I mean. Perhaps a 1% difference wouldn't be noticeable but sooner or later static bright images like an icon on the taskbar etc would "burn-in" permanently. Plasmas have improved, their declared lifetime is over 120 000 these days and yet burn-in is still an issue for PC use and will probably never get solved completely. That's my main worry with OLED, are they ever going to be suitable for computer usage instead of TVs only?

I think you have misunderstood the problem regarding OLED longevity, as it is not related to burn in. The issue is not just that blue OLEDs have a relatively shot lifespan, but that the blue subpixel in a OLED display tends to decay in brightness much faster then the red and green. This means the screens color will gradually change over time.

Currently two relatively crude ways are done to combat this problem. The screen comes calibrated to have a stronger blue hue at the start (which has an obvious disadvantage, and only addresses the symptom for a period of time). The other is using differing sized sub pixels, this has a disadvantage in that display fine lines (such as text), can be "fuzzy."

I suppose in the long run more optimal resolutions to this issue would be either developing really long lasting blue OLEDs and using them "faster decaying" red and green ones, so they will decay at the same rate. Or perhaps utilizing some sort of algorithm (perhaps combined with sensors) to automatically adjust the color balance of the screen over time.

But as far as I know there isn't any specific characteristic of the technology that would make it possibly problematic for PC use such as Plasmas. Currently manufacturing makes it more practical for small screen devices though, which is why you will be seeing more of those using OLED screens (I think the next iphone might me rumored to be using one?. Many android phones already do, and so does the Zune).
 
I think you have misunderstood the problem regarding OLED longevity, as it is not related to burn in. The issue is not just that blue OLEDs have a relatively shot lifespan, but that the blue subpixel in a OLED display tends to decay in brightness much faster then the red and green. This means the screens color will gradually change over time.

Surely that means both then though, the screens color will gradually change over time AND burn in issues as well? Isn't that what "burn in" basically is, an uneven wear of pixels? So if you were to display a bright object on a dark background for a long time, those pixels would decay faster than the rest of the screen and at different rates too which would show up as an object that is "burned" into the screen.
 
Surely that means both then though, the screens color will gradually change over time AND burn in issues as well? Isn't that what "burn in" basically is, an uneven wear of pixels? So if you were to display a bright object on a dark background for a long time, those pixels would decay faster than the rest of the screen and at different rates too which would show up as an object that is "burned" into the screen.

Yes.

There are several failure modes in an OLED. The first is the development of non-emissive spots that grow over time because of the contamination with oxygen or moisture. The second is short-circuiting of the OLED caused by defects and spikes in the ITO anode layer.

The rate of intrinsic OLED degradation is dependent on the power efficiency. It is important to note that operating temperature has a long-term effect on the required operating voltage of an OLED. As luminance decays, the operating voltage increases, accelerating the rate of decay.
 
Last edited:
OLED is hardly the first display technology to suffer uneven color degradation. A lot of materials research has been invested into increasing blue OLED lifespan and not without some significant results. Heck, Dupont already has inkjet-able blue up to "34000 hours". That's already longer than most people use their sets before throwing them out. Yes, the overall color will change over time but not nearly as fast or severely as you are implying. Even if the first few years of OLED displays have particularly short blue lifespans, a little re-calibration every once in a while should be enough to keep the problem in check for years.

Companies can cite their blue material has have 34,000 hours half-life. This is meaningless if the blue lacks the saturation to achieve coverage of 72% NTSC. Full colour AMOLEDs with a coverage of only 62% NTSC are viable for smart phones and Ipad devices, but not for televisions or monitors.
 
To sum up the last couple of posts , OLED is far from ready for full scale mass production and since no one currently is investing huge sums of money to further research its very unlikely that it'll ever reach anything other than cell phones/laptops or novelty stage at this point.
 
To sum up the last couple of posts , OLED is far from ready for full scale mass production and since no one currently is investing huge sums of money to further research its very unlikely that it'll ever reach anything other than cell phones/laptops or novelty stage at this point.

I think this is the question rather than the answer. We know Sony has given up on OLED, but Samsung and LG are still talking it up. I saw a quote from an LG VP on Daily Tech that said OLED would be selling at comparable prices to LCD by 2016. Has their stance changed in the past few months?

I think you could very well be right, but do we know it for sure?

Also making OLED panels at larger sizes seems to be a bigger obstical then the blue element lifespan. Here is a tease from Samsung: http://www.hdtvinfo.eu/news/hdtv-articles/40-inch-oled-panel-from-samsung.html
I think they patched this together from a grid of smaller OLED tiles. Note they replaced the bule subpixel with something else entirley.

Here: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/gadgetrev...-them/14843?tag=content;search-results-rivers
is the artical on DuPone's printing process.

My 2 cents

Dave
 
I think this is the question rather than the answer. We know Sony has given up on OLED, but Samsung and LG are still talking it up. I saw a quote from an LG VP on Daily Tech that said OLED would be selling at comparable prices to LCD by 2016. Has their stance changed in the past few months?

I think you could very well be right, but do we know it for sure?

Also making OLED panels at larger sizes seems to be a bigger obstical then the blue element lifespan. Here is a tease from Samsung: http://www.hdtvinfo.eu/news/hdtv-articles/40-inch-oled-panel-from-samsung.html
I think they patched this together from a grid of smaller OLED tiles. Note they replaced the bule subpixel with something else entirley.

Here: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/gadgetrev...-them/14843?tag=content;search-results-rivers
is the artical on DuPone's printing process.

My 2 cents

Dave

That VP is throwing around a date but he really has no idea exactly when OLEDs will be ready for mass production as people have been throwing around figures for the last 5+ years. And as far as Samsung and LG being involved its more of a long term research project for them , LED technology on its own is selling well right at the moment so they don't feel a rush to replace current new generation panels with anything for awhile.

As for what DuPone has done , that will all depend on the contracts they forge with company's like LG and Samsung who may choose to continue there own research instead of buying it from another business entirely. They won't make large TV sets if they have to pay a huge premium for the use of the technology.

Showing off a 40 inch OLED tv is just showing it off and Panasonic has been showing off huge 100+ plasma's for awhile now so that doesn't mean its something you can buy right at the moment in large scale mass production. Its just showing off , its what those trade shows are for.

OLED for TV's in large sizes is exactly where it will be for at least 8+ years and even when it does come out (if it doesn't get dropped by LG or Samsung during that time like Sony just decided to do) its going to be a while before it gets to a reasonable price range.
 
I Just want to say that many of you are spoiled with the currently cheap prices for LCD's. I remember when easily a monitor purchase was $1000 or higher, and this goes for CRT. I remember when the first LCD's were easily over $1000, and these were small 15" screens.

If they are already selling 15" OLED displays and currently can produce bigger screens, it will not be long before there are 22" to 30" computer monitor displays. Yes, you will not be able to pick them up for $150 bucks like you can an LCD monitor. New technolgoy was never cheap, and this is no exception.

For $1500-$2000 dollars, I would easily purchase a 22" OLED display for my computer, that has ZERO LAG, and the best video quiality money can buy. Some of you may think this is excessive, but that is only because you are spoiled by the currently cheap prices. There are plenty of people out there who would pay the much higher price for an OLED, even with all the bugs, me included.

You may also state that OLED are currently plagued with problems, but so were the first LCD's. They were so laggy you could not play any games on them. This did not stop anybody from buying them.

Already this LG 15" offering is less than half the price of SONY's 11" OLED display.
http://www.gizmag.com/lg-oled-el9500-tv-release-uk/14601/
Prices are dropping fast, and size is increasing very fast. Will only be a few short years and we will have OLED computer displays. They may not be $150 dollars, but they will be available.
Also in this article it said sony will still continue research on OLED, so they have not given up on OLED as many stated in this thread.
 
Last edited:
You may also state that OLED are currently plagued with problems, but so were the first LCD's. They were so laggy you could not play any games on them. This did not stop anybody from buying them.
It stopped me from buying one, and I know of several others. But, nope, it didn't stop women who don't like "big clunky TV's", telling their husbands to go for "the nice slim one". LCD was / is mainly about the form factor, and unfortunately picture quality was secondary for a long time there. But, now that the slim form factor is here, newer technologies are going to have to compete on more than just being thinner.. so that means power consumption, price, and picture quality.

Having used OLED phones I can also say the OLED's I've seen still don't have a viewing angle as good as CRT either, although it is better than IPS. Plus quite a few screens seem to have colour uniformity problems right from day one, which are going to require a better manufacturing process or corrective electronics. Anyone who thinks that one's easy to solve should, perhaps, look at the crappy job LG's done with IPS desktop screens for the last few years which make expensive solutions from NEC or Eizo necessary for some people.

Other than the black level (the importance of which is often overstated IMO, at least in comparison to some of the latest LCD's), and faster response, OLED isn't really a lot better than what we've got now, and I say that as someone who uses an AMOLED device daily.

Prices are dropping fast, and size is increasing very fast.
The first part is certainly true. There are now contract free Android phones with 3.5" AMOLED screens for under $150. Size remains to be seen, and it's obviously not an easy problem when even Sony gave up (at least trying to manufacture) for now.
 
Having used OLED phones I can also say the OLED's I've seen still don't have a viewing angle as good as CRT either, although it is better than IPS. Plus quite a few screens seem to have colour uniformity problems right from day one, which are going to require a better manufacturing process or corrective electronics. Anyone who thinks that one's easy to solve should, perhaps, look at the crappy job LG's done with IPS desktop screens for the last few years which make expensive solutions from NEC or Eizo necessary for some people.

This is another point that I always make about OLED. It is very wrong to assume the LG, Smasung and the like will not have QA problems, panel lotteries, and other issues. In this day and age quality of anything is out the window. Sad but true.
 
Where is the LG OLED TV available for 1/2 price of the Sony? Wouldn't that be $1250?

OLED TV tech should be massively better than LCD. Especially if we're really talking about vs. computer monitors and not full LED array backed selectively lit LCD TVs...

(Admittedly...both CRT and OLED's virtues fail substantially in bright sunlight...but there's ambient light control during the day and always the night...)
 
Back
Top