OLED monitor news

gan7114

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
275
Fresh off the press, some new information regarding medium sized (15"-32") OLED panel production using the inkjet printing process.


First up, Japan OLED (JOLED):

FlatpanelsHD
https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1544530038

"The company also showcased three 21.6-inch OLED panels intended for monitors. These include a Full HD version for gaming monitors, a 4K version that will be included in the soon-to-be released Asus PQ22UC, and a 4K version for medical monitors.

Lastly, JOLED demonstrated various other OLED panels, including two rigid and flexible displays for automotive use, a 27-inch 4K panel, a flexible 21.6-inch 4K panel that can wrap around a pillar, and a wall-mounted solution for the connected home."


OLED-Info
https://www.oled-info.com/here-are-joleds-new-oled-display-prototypes

"JOLED's first OLED TV panel. The 55" 4K (3840x2160, 80 PPI) panel offers a 120Hz refresh rate and a color gamut of 100% DCI (135% sRGB) and is printed on JOLED's Transparent Amorphous Oxide Semiconductor (TAOS) backplane."

55" 4K TV (not intended for future production)
JOLED-55-inch-OLED-TV-FineTech-JP-2018-img_assist-400x266.jpg


Automotive
JOLED-Automotive-OLED-FineTech-JP-2018-img_assist-400x266.jpg


21.6" 1080p Gaming Monitor
JOLED-eSport-Gaming-OLED-FineTech-JP-2018-img_assist-400x266.jpg


Metro Signage
JOLED-Metro-signage-OLED-FineTech-JP-2018-img_assist-400x266.jpg


JOLED's panels also use top emission, which is superior to bottom emission which is currently used in LG's OLED panels. This allows the OLED to be brighter, meaning better HDR. Another great feature of JOLED's panels is the use of Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence (TADF), which increases the efficiency of OLED, especially blue emitters. Using TADF may also bring a reduction in burn-in.

You can read a more technical description about TADF here:

https://www.edinst.com/blog/tadf-thermally-activated-delayed-fluorescence/


Also, Samsung news too! Especially that last little bit of information. :)

OLED-Info:
https://www.oled-info.com/samsung-p...apply-it-next-generation-monitors-and-laptops

"Samsung Display has made significant progress with its OLED ink-jet printing process technology, and the company now aims to apply this technology to produce medium-sized panels for OLED Laptops and OLED monitors."
 
Last edited:

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
Uh, more 27" nonsense. Can we please get more 32"+ monitors, preferably around 40" and in the very near future? 27" is started to feel very small, especially with 4K. I'm not looking forward to the spate of 27" 8K monitors you know we're going to get.
 

GNUse_the_force

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
427
Uh, more 27" nonsense. Can we please get more 32"+ monitors, preferably around 40" and in the very near future? 27" is started to feel very small, especially with 4K. I'm not looking forward to the spate of 27" 8K monitors you know we're going to get.
Just waiting for a high refresh 5k ultrawide at a decent vertical height, perhaps bigger than the 38" maybe a 40" 5k ultrawide. I know i can't run games that that hz or res but i don't care im still willing to try.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,031
I can't imagine there are really very many people who want to buy 40" monitors for desktop use. I would really be surprised if anyone focuses on a size beyond 32" for a mass market gaming product, most people just don't have the unusually deep desk setup you need for that to even be usable.
 

bigbluefe

Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
933
Jesus what the fuck is with these tiny monitors designed for ANTS.

27" monitors are shorter than Peter Dinklage. You basically have to go to 30" to even begin to get a screen that's tall enough. I'll say it again: fuck this shitty industry.

Fuck OLED anyway. It's too late. I don't want that burn in laden shit. Stop milking it and just do MicroLED you cock suckers.
 

JargonGR

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
493
Quote from a JOLED rep is that the 21.6" gaming display will be priced comparably to the 27" FALD displays, so probably around $2k initially. Source: https://www.4gamer.net/games/999/G999902/20181205131/
Word from me is that they can shove it right where it belongs after the sales failure it will be. Or send it to Apple to make an iPad pro. 21.6" belongs to 1995....out of my sight...
 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
2,136
I wonder how problematic using different color OLEDs will be instead of all white with filters like LG. If the 27" 4k has 120hz freesync or gsync I would buy it anyways.
 

HiCZoK

Gawd
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
821
27 is good. No room for bigger monitor. 32 is too big to sit at arms length but the option would be nice
 

gan7114

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
275
More juicy OLED news (related to Samsung) added to the OP, along with pictures and additional articles.
 

HeadRusch

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
1,323
I've used a 39 and 42" TV as a PC monitor for more than a decade now (still have the original, crusty awful-looking-but-great-at-the-time Westinghouse 37W1 (a monitor, it has no tuner inside, long before HD sets had to have HD tuners in them)......I can say even at 4k you dont want to go bigger than 42" or so on a desktop....the brightness of a TV will blind you at that distance on larger panel, and you get into the whole 'if I move my head 1/2" to the right the colors get brighter" thing of being outside the sweet-spot for the set (probably 5+ feet away from the panel), YMMV this is just something to consider.
 

gan7114

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
275
Optimal would be 30.6" at 1440p. Sizable enough, and exactly Windows 96 PPI.
I'm really surprised that the panel manufactures haven't zeroed in on this size. Microsoft has custom panels cut for its products like the Surface Studio 2. Even though that AIO has a 28" panel and an odd ball resolution and aspect ratio, the PPI is 192, which is exactly 2x 96 PPI. It's not a coincidence; Microsoft did that on purpose, because text and the Windows UI look and feel best in derivatives of 96 PPI.

1440p at 30.6" = 96 PPI (100% scaling)
4K at 30.6" = 144 PPI (150% scaling)
5K at 30.6" = 192 PPI (200% scaling)

IMO, 30.6" should be the catch-all size for a great user experience whether at 1440p, 4K, or 5K.
 
Last edited:

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
I wonder how problematic using different color OLEDs will be instead of all white with filters like LG. If the 27" 4k has 120hz freesync or gsync I would buy it anyways.
Probably why these will be so expensive. A 21.6" 1080p monitor for $2,000+? Maybe 3 people will buy it.
 

Necere

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
2,743
Keep in mind these are being produced on a 4.5G pilot line. Prices should come down once they get the 5.5G line up and running in 2020.
 

lightsout

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
1,142
Jesus what the fuck is with these tiny monitors designed for ANTS.

27" monitors are shorter than Peter Dinklage. You basically have to go to 30" to even begin to get a screen that's tall enough. I'll say it again: fuck this shitty industry.

Fuck OLED anyway. It's too late. I don't want that burn in laden shit. Stop milking it and just do MicroLED you cock suckers.
What is wrong with you?
 

Tup3x

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
1,866
Optimal would be 30.6" at 1440p. Sizable enough, and exactly Windows 96 PPI.
That's not optimal at all. That PPI is too low to look good in my opinion. My 24" 1080p screen isn't even remotely enough to look good.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
That's not optimal at all. That PPI is too low to look good in my opinion. My 24" 1080p screen isn't even remotely enough to look good.
I agree with that. I use 22" 1080p monitors at work, which would be the size for "optimal" 96 PPI in Windows, and the text looks horrible to my eyes even with ClearType calibrated for each of them. I prefer 110-120.
 

gan7114

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
275
That's not optimal at all. That PPI is too low to look good in my opinion. My 24" 1080p screen isn't even remotely enough to look good.
I agree with that. I use 22" 1080p monitors at work, which would be the size for "optimal" 96 PPI in Windows, and the text looks horrible to my eyes even with ClearType calibrated for each of them. I prefer 110-120.
It’s more optimal than 32” 1440p, which is becoming more common.

To each their own. But mathematically, 30.6” is indeed the optimal size for unscaled 1440p in a Windows environment.
 

thelead

2[H]4U
Joined
May 28, 2005
Messages
2,126
32” 1440p is just gross. I’m convinced those that want low ppi monitors are a combination of old (stuck in their ways) and/or have bad eyesight.
 

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,482
32” 1440p is just gross. I’m convinced those that want low ppi monitors are a combination of old (stuck in their ways) and/or have bad eyesight.
Then sit further away. I'd much rather game on my 55" 4k OLED at 81ppi than a 24" 1080p screen even though the 1080p screen has a higher ppi.
 

thelead

2[H]4U
Joined
May 28, 2005
Messages
2,126
Then sit further away. I'd much rather game on my 55" 4k OLED at 81ppi than a 24" 1080p screen even though the 1080p screen has a higher ppi.
Depends on the game. I connect my PC to my HDTV for controller games and love it but I couldn't imagine using a 55" for daily non-gaming pc tasks.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
Depends on the game. I connect my PC to my HDTV for controller games and love it but I couldn't imagine using a 55" for daily non-gaming pc tasks.
You haven't lived until you've done some coding on a 55" screen.
 

Digital Viper-X-

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
13,974
I don't understand, we can produce 5.5" OLED screens that are 1440p and sell with a phone for under $1k, we can produce 55" OLEDs that are 4k and sell for about $1500, why is it hard to get a 32" OLED 1440p screen for a reasonable price :D
 

CajunAzn

n00b
Joined
Sep 8, 2014
Messages
22
Geez...if I was an OEM and looked at the amount of enthusiasm in this thread, I'd probably think twice about entering the OLED monitor market too. :p

JOLED supplying 27" and under panel sizes is good news because it means laptop manufacturers will finally have a reliable supplier to solve their sourcing issues. More OLED panels on the market means more exposure to gamers, graphics pros, and high-end customers, which means more incentive for manufacturers to focus on larger panel sizes for the same audience.

It's a win-win, griping about this makes no sense.
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,824
5 year /15,000 hour iron clad no OLED burn in warranty? Then no thanks. Even then, meh. I'm still using a 2009 VA samsung tv in another room and it's 2018, as well as an apple cinema display 27" 1440 I bought idk how many years ago it's been so long still being in my monitor array. No burn in. I'm also passing on anything that isn't hdmi 2.1 going forward to start with - GPUs, Monitors, TVs, receivers, etc. Then anything 4k that isn't 120hz native input, VRR, and at least VA black depth. High density FALD + HDR 1000+ plus optimally.

I agree that 4k at 27" is a waste of desktop real estate. 32" - 40" would be better. 27" monitors are ~ 13" tall. 32" 1440p is a fair tradeoff for dedication to gaming with some anti aliasing and higher frame rates than 4k... but is not enough for high quality desktop/apps usage.

Really, a wide wall of high ppi monitor with an OS that allowed you to make virtual monitor spaces within it would be best. By that time we'd probably have virtual screens with insanely high rez AR glasses virtually "in" real space though.

A problem with desks is people are generally stuck in the rut of keeping them tucked against a wall like a bookshelf rather than facing out to a room like a command center. Most people stuff their pc into a room rather than design their room around their pc and desk ~ entertainment center and perhaps workstation. This is also really bad for direct light since sitting facing a wall leaves the monitor facing the room like a catchers mitt for light pollution rather than having the backs of your monitors facing the room and light sources. If using speakers the room design/layout matters a lot too. I can also be liberating to not have to turn your back to the rest of the room.

Personally I am leaning toward getting a big TV and sitting my desk further away from it. I'll keep a couple of monitors on the sides of the desk but the main center gaming one will probably end up being a big display on a wall or pillar stand with a floor lamp on each side of it on the wall. I'm looking to the continuation of the samsung Q9FN series which should have hdmi 2.1, 4k 120hz native input VariableRefreshRate, QuickFrameTransport, 1000+ nit HDR, VA black depth + 480 zone FALD.

I seriously looked into OLED but after following along rtings oled burn in test and reading other reports in reviews and on forums it's just not worth it to me, especially at the prices I'd be paying for state of the art hdmi 2.1 HDR tech.
 
Last edited:

gan7114

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
275
I seriously looked into OLED but after following along rtings oled burn in test and reading other reports in reviews and on forums it's just not worth it to me, especially at the prices I'd be paying for state of the art hdmi 2.1 HDR tech.
I don't get why people see the Rtings torture test as some sort of Bible. It's so far removed from actual real life usage that it's practically useless other than to say, "Yeah, if you abuse a TV long enough, it'll start to have problems."

I'm much more likely to believe the tech aficionados posting over at, say, AVSForum who actually know how to treat their AV equipment with care and respect than reviewers who deliberately engage in unrealistic torture tests or general consumers leaving uneducated comments on shopping sites.
 
Last edited:

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,824
It's s not just rtings tests. its happened to regular buyers. Spending thousands of dollars on something with such a weakness and risiking being one of the unlucky ones, even if 1yr+ out and with no mfg support for it is not something I'm interested in.

It's a definite risk especially for pc use. Thats why the articles the op referenced say "reduced chance of burn in". If you can guarantee it wouldn't happen to me I'd love to hear it.
 

Necere

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
2,743
The way I think about OLED's potential for PC use is not so much as a primary, general purpose display, but in a multi-monitor setup as a secondary display for specific types of content. In short, anything that involves displaying static images long term should ideally go on an LCD, while the OLED is best reserved for content where the infinite contrast ratio really shines. Specifically, anything cinematic, like movies, TV shows, and certain types of games get the most benefit from OLED, while limiting the possibility of burn in.

Web browsing, general desktop use, or games you'd put several hundreds/thousands of hours into are best kept on an LCD. Ironically, JOLED partnering with an e-sports team was probably the wrong call, considering that's exactly the kind of content (a single game for long periods of time) that will cause burn in.

Obviously, a dual monitor setup isn't ideal for everyone, and in those cases it's probably best to stick with an LCD for the foreseeable future (at least until something better comes along).
 
  • Like
Reactions: elvn
like this

gan7114

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
275
It's s not just rtings tests. its happened to regular buyers. Spending thousands of dollars on something with such a weakness and risiking being one of the unlucky ones, even if 1yr+ out and with no mfg support for it is not something I'm interested in.

It's a definite risk especially for pc use. Thats why the articles the op referenced say "reduced chance of burn in". If you can guarantee it wouldn't happen to me I'd love to hear it.
I am the OP. ;)

I’ve owned an LG C7 for over a year now. I watch a ton of cable news, with all the chyrons and news tickets. As far as my eyes can tell, there hasn’t been an ounce of burn in, color fade, or even image retention. Probably because LG has built in image retention prevention when the TV is turned off.

It quite literally has nothing to do with being lucky. That makes it seem as if it’s a panel lottery. It comes down to how you use the TV. In the case of Rtings, if you run something like a 20 minute news segment on repeat with no commercials for 24/7 with >75% contrast, brightness, and OLED brightness, then no wonder there’s damage from such abuse. There’s no reason (especially with OLED) to have such saturated, searing colors.

AVSForum recently did a non-scientific poll asking if members experienced burn-in. Only 7% reported as such, and another 7% reported image retention. So 14 percent? I chalk that up to user error or stupidity.

As I like to say, to each their own. Everyone has different needs. And obviously, PC use is a bit different. It sounds like TADF could really help with reduced burn in with inkjet OLEDs. OLED may not be 100% suitable for PC games with static HUDs and UI bars right now, but it has promise.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,031
The rtings tests pretty much indicate that even static images for thousands of hours do not cause burn-in visible on normal content, unless those static images are bright red like the CNN logo. All other types of games/content/logos don't really matter. They state this themselves directly.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,687
Weird how countless galaxy phones have burn-in. Different tech? More likely to use at 100% brightness?
edit to add: of course some of the new oled designs have mostly avoided burn-in by not being traditional oleds, instead using white oleds.
 
Last edited:

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,824
"promise" me no burn in on a likely ~ $2k or more 2019 hdmi 2.1 oled as an avid pc user and gamer using game huds and app interfaces for hours on end. The manufacturer certainly isn't. I love the black depth and per pixel emissive but I'll pass.

HDR brightness uses absolute values too so you aren't dimming those highlights unless you want to pervert the hdr images.
 
Last edited:

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,482
I have owned 2 OLED TVs myself since 2016 and neither have any burn in issues but can I say the same thing in 5+ years? Who knows. I get that some people want their displays to last 10 years so in the case of OLED yeah I wouldn't be able to promise you a display you can keep for 10 years.
 

euskalzabe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
1,115
...if you run something like a 20 minute news segment on repeat with no commercials for 24/7 with >75% contrast, brightness, and OLED brightness, then no wonder there’s damage from such abuse....
...Only 7% reported as such, and another 7% reported image retention. So 14 percent? I chalk that up to user error or stupidity.
Uh... not trying to inflame anyone, but did you just say abuse regarding people who do nothing more than display images on their display, which is precisely their main function? It doesn't matter if you display noise 24/7, or blocks of black/white that never, ever move. Displays are built for displaying. So, no sort of displaying of images can possibly constitute abuse. That is literally their only purpose. Excusing some forms of displayed image as abuse, tells me you're simply excusing a very real - however infrequent - grave flaw in the technology.

Take your second point: 14% of image issue, whether 7% burn-in or image retention. Even if we just think of 7% burn-in, that's unacceptably high. If LG sells 1 million TVs, that's 70,000 people with burn-in. That's a lot of burn-in! For a product whose only function is to display images, having 7% of the production fail at its main and only function is really, really bad!

Look, I get it. OLEDs look wonderful. Ignoring their other problems (comparatively low brightness at full white, gradients not up to par with other LCD screens), they're a really attractive option. But we gain nothing from excusing their very real flaws. A few months ago I had to choose: get a 55" OLED or FALD LCD. I ended up getting a Vizio P55-F1 because it looks wonderful and only cost me $800. It's not as striking as an OLED, but it's pretty damn close for much less money. And it has none of the flaws that OLED has (it does, like most LCDs, have other flaws, but that's not what we're talking about here). Right now, OLED is still too high-risk, because buying a product that has one main function where 7% of the production is quite likely to fail, is a bad value proposition. There is definitely a luck component, then, because you don't see OLEDs advertised as great for everything except if you only watch cable news all day! Then don't buy this! They're displays. They must be able to display everything, perfectly, to the best of their ability, until they die. Burn-in is a very real situation that proves they fail at their main function, without any abuse of any sort.

Don't take it from me. The market has pretty much agreed with this perspective. Or you think MicroLED is being aggressively developed just because? MicroLED has the same benefits of OLED, with none of the drawbacks of organic components. If OLED were so great and risk-free, there would be no point in developing MicroLED. And yet, the advantages are obvious to the key market players. Let's not ignore the reasons why that is happening.

Again, not trying to antagonize anyone, just wanted to point out that those 2 arguments, abuse and % of product failures, are simply unacceptable. At least, they are to me... and I'd think they should be to anyone forking more than one thousand dollars for a display.
 
Top