Monitor that has OLED panel will appear at CES (Consumer Electronics Show) that will be held in January of 2016.
Source:
http://english.etnews.com/20151204200003
Source:
http://english.etnews.com/20151204200003
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
lol $26000? wtf
Well course they're still the only serious oled makers at the moment.And I read that it's an LG panel... Ugh.
Well course they're still the only serious oled makers at the moment.
And even the 'filthy LG' oled sets put the most expensive lcd's to shame in so many areas I don't see how anyone would see this as negative news.
It's only the beginning, the price tag will be high, I think the 'big' year for oled will probably be 2017 or even 2018.
Should clarify. I like LG. My only issue is that they're only pushing WRGB sub pixel layouts, which aren't fully compatible with RGB. For televisions this isn't that big of a deal but for PC monitors it could be? I don't know.
Wouldn't be surprised if it's like $5,000 for a small 1080p screen. But still glad to see it take off nonetheless.
And I read that it's an LG panel... Ugh.
that wouldn't really make any sense considering even the most expensive LG OLED televisions max out at $5k, and that's for a 65" 4K model...
Sony's OLEDs still have much slower rise times, and much longer persistence than a CRT.I hope most future OLED monitors have this scanning mode as an option: https://youtu.be/jTfvwOGu4EI
That way you'll get super clear motion like with a CRT.
I would hope that LG realize that RGBW is unsuitable for monitors.Should clarify. I like LG. My only issue is that they're only pushing WRGB sub pixel layouts, which aren't fully compatible with RGB. For televisions this isn't that big of a deal but for PC monitors it could be? I don't know. Just goes to show that no consumer display technology is perfect, but OLED should come pretty close.
Could be worse: it could be an AUO panel like all the recent gaming monitors.And I read that it's an LG panel... Ugh.
The source still reads like they're only having an event behind closed doors, and it's likely just for industrial purposes, like broadcasting or medical. It'll probably take several years before we see a consumer OLED monitor.
Sony's OLEDs still have much slower rise times, and much longer persistence than a CRT.
They're also keeping a large portion of the screen illuminated at once, compared to a CRT.
This is far better than LG's OLEDs, which are flicker-free, but far from the "super clear motion" of a CRT.
I would expect LG's monitors to be flicker-free displays. I know people that have been in contact with LG's engineers and from what I'm told, they are strongly opposed to the idea of having their OLED displays flicker.
Hopefully other manufacturers will be able to use whatever panels LG produce for monitors, so that we can get companies producing OLED monitors which do have CRT-like persistence.
I'm not convinced that OLEDs are nearly bright enough for that yet though.
I'm really not sure what the cause is, just that currently they are much slower than CRTs.Aren't those response times due to image processing and not the OLED pixel tech? I was under the impression that the actual pixels are capable of less persistence than CRT phosphors.
Anything you do to reduce flicker means higher persistence, which means worse motion clarity.And I don't find the large scanning "band" on the Sony OLED to be a bad thing, considering how CRT flicker is very noticeable at 60hz and below. Having a larger band gives you the ability to have smoother motion at lower refresh rates without noticeable flicker. As you increase the refresh rate you could make the band smaller.
Aren't those response times due to image processing and not the OLED pixel tech? I was under the impression that the actual pixels are capable of less persistence than CRT phosphors.
And I don't find the large scanning "band" on the Sony OLED to be a bad thing, considering how CRT flicker is very noticeable at 60hz and below. Having a larger band gives you the ability to have smoother motion at lower refresh rates without noticeable flicker. As you increase the refresh rate you could make the band smaller.
Aren't those response times due to image processing and not the OLED pixel tech? I was under the impression that the actual pixels are capable of less persistence than CRT phosphors.
that wouldn't really make any sense considering even the most expensive LG OLED televisions max out at $5k, and that's for a 65" 4K model...
Pro click straight outta 2009 right here folks!Here's another article with more details.
There is a lot of stuff that the tech is capable of in theory but early implementations most always fall short. Look how long it took for 120Hz+ TN or IPS LCDs to become available much less become somewhat affordable. There is a big difference in image quality in screens from 4-5 yr ago too even if you don't care about refresh rates. Even more so vs some of the first consumer LCD's from over 10yr ago.I was under the impression that the actual pixels are capable of less persistence than CRT phosphors.
...with a 144Hz+ adaptive refresh rate.Come on LG, 34" curved 21:9 ultrawide OLEDs for < 1K
Come on LG, 34" curved 21:9 ultrawide OLEDs for < 1K
Ideally, this would be 100Hz+, 1ms or less persistance, 4:3 or 3:2, take DL-DVI, have no DRM, be free of scalers and not be above 24". I bet they will do the exact opposite, though.
Ideally, this would be 100Hz+, 1ms or less persistance, 4:3 or 3:2, take DL-DVI, have no DRM, be free of scalers and not be above 24". I bet they will do the exact opposite, though.
There is a lot of stuff that the tech is capable of in theory but early implementations most always fall short. Look how long it took for 120Hz+ TN or IPS LCDs to become available much less become somewhat affordable. There is a big difference in image quality in screens from 4-5 yr ago too even if you don't care about refresh rates. Even more so vs some of the first consumer LCD's from over 10yr ago.
OLED has great potential but unless you're rich and can easily afford to drop large amounts of money every year without a care in the world they're not worth trying to be a early adopter over. Especially since IPS also keeps improving too and is already much more affordable.
In the long run that will probably change but for anyone on a budget, which is really most people, current LCD's will definitely offer more bang for the buck than OLED for a while yet. After all you need a good GPU if you wanna push lots of pixels and those don't come cheap normally either. Give em' 3-4 more years to become affordable and get the inevitable bugs worked out on OLED. You'll probably be happier in the long run.
OLED's work in a fundamentally different fashion though (back light via LED or CCFL for LCD displays while OLED each pixel is its own light) so this flat out isn't true for many things. Also I'm referring more to fundamental issues with the tech itself and not features. The way they're generating colors right now (via filters) for some of the mass produced screens is a bit hinky to say the least.The difference I think is that like a lot of the tech developed for LCD panels will translate well over to OLED (adaptive refresh, strobing, etc) and won't need to be developed from the ground up.