• 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.

OLED to mainstream market???

R

Rob.

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
155
Why can't they bring OLED Monitors to mainstream market and reduce the price??
 
Because of poor yield. Unless someone manages to develop commercially viable printing technique, the price of OLED will continue to follow the trend set by LCD/plasma. Meaning we won't have access to affordable OLED for another 3-5 years.
 
Last edited:
Input vs output. Yield is mainly governed by the size of the substrate. Samsung's 5.5 Gen factory supports 1,300x1,500mm substrate, which can be cut to produce six 32" screens. As the size of the substrate increases, so will the output thus better yield. Other factors include manufacturing steps, resources used, defectiveness, etc.

Both LCD and Plasma are mature technologies. An 8.5 gen LCD plant can produce six 55" or eight 47" screens per mother-glass. The process of also streamlined and extremely efficient hence why LCD is so cheap these days.
 
SED was the ultimate display but it never came around.....too bad really.... now we have this over hyped OLED which looks great but it's not for everyone.... LCD isn't bad if you get a good monitor....
 
Comixbooks said:
SED was the ultimate display but it never came around.....too bad really.... now we have this over hyped OLED which looks great but it's not for everyone.... LCD isn't bad if you get a good monitor....
Click to expand...

Wasn't SED basically a thin ass CRT?

Personally, while I would love an OLED monitor I'm currently using a 22 inch Dell/Sony Trinitron P1110 CRT...running at 2048x1536 desktop and the same with games unless I feel like running 1080p/1200p (which works, you just gotta narrow the screen).

Personally, until I can get a OLED I'll be sticking with my CRT. Best of all worlds except for size/weight. Excellent contrast (on a blank screen you can't tell if it's even on or not), no light bleed, accurate colors, etc...just the best!

IPS has glow and sub-par contrast where as MVA has good contrast and colors but viewing angles and response is kinda low.

Either way...I'm looking forward to OLED (the 5.3" one in my Note is gorgeous!) but like I said, until they come around, its CRT for me all the way!

Plus, it helps I bought this monitor a little over a year ago brand new as well...so PLENTY of life left!
 
Sadly have fun waiting. The LG 55 inch OLED tvs are right around the corner so the technology is making progress. Now if they could just get that down to 27 inch 1440p. Game changer.
 
OLED: Work out the longevity issues and this is near perfect display tech. Pure black, pure speed, pure viewing angles.

In my opnion, LCD is fine for computing but not so good for a home theater setup. The true constrast ratio (not the dynamic one used for marketing purposes) is still quite bad except maybe for led array with local dimming.
 
It'll be amazing when it does finally come around, we'll start to see OLED super expensive TV's come to market in 2013, eventually those will slowly begin to drop in price with smaller and cheaper OLED displays being made, we already have several Sony OLED displays, eventually we'll get them but I believe LCD still still be here for quite a bit of time yet.

My prediction is that by 2020 most people will be using OLED displays and LCD will be used only for entry level products. Just think by 2020 a Dell u3011 in 2020 will probably cost $200 lol
 
RadXge said:
OLED: Work out the longevity issues and this is near perfect display tech. Pure black, pure speed, pure viewing angles.

In my opnion, LCD is fine for computing but not so good for a home theater setup. The true constrast ratio (not the dynamic one used for marketing purposes) is still quite bad except maybe for led array with local dimming.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. OLED for Home theater where deep blacks are a must for watching movies in the dark and where durability won't matter so much with video sources. LCD for computer monitors for the durability, and where absolute black doesn't matter as much.

We don't if OLED will ever be suitable for computer monitors, anymore than Plasma ever was.

But bring on the OLED TVs.
 
Plasma can be and are used as monitors. It's just that consumer grade plasmas don't have the features required to display static image for prolonged period. There's also the issue of resolution and size. As for the lifespan, we know that RGB color filter works but at the cost of energy consumption.
 
http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2012/12/korean-panel-makers-change-tv-priorities-oled-vs-4kx2k

Korean Panel Makers Change TV Priorities: OLED vs. 4Kx2K
Click to expand...

A fundamental challenge for AMOLED TV remains manufacturing yield. Pilot production indicates that 55” AMOLED TV panel straight yield (without repair) is in single digits due to instability in the large backplanes (using LTPS or oxide TFT). Total yield (after repair) is estimated to be less than 30%. Finally, frit encapsulation is too fragile for large area TV, and is resulting in reduced panel life.
Click to expand...

:mad::mad::mad:
 
Well, the fact is that no 55" OLED can be bought at the moment. Still, OLED was expected to be available in 2012.

I dot care about 4K by 2K considering that 1080p is plenty enough for TVs smaller than 65" (TV use not computing).
OLED brings true improvements to the table: a black that is actually black.
 
how would an OLED monitor do in terms of response time and input lag? would it be suitable for gaming?
 
OLED has response times and input lag like CRT, so it would be much better than any LCD or plasma. And not a hint of ghosting.
 
OLEDs respond much faster than CRT, but there's a massive question mark around lag since its a digital display (CRT is pure analogue).

OLEDs do have ghosting similar to LCDs but it can be eliminated via pulse simulation.
 
SED and FED are inferior to OLED. Also 2013 plasmas are set to match SED's performance.
 
KashunatoR said:
how would an OLED monitor do in terms of response time and input lag? would it be suitable for gaming?
Click to expand...

OLED doesn't have the same problems as LCD tech so there would be NO motion blur, no need for image processing so no input lag (although I can imagine some companies will put image processing into some units) and no ghosting.

There is also no backlight bleed as there is no backlight. The only issue that current OLED tech has is image retention but I'm pretty sure that by the time that comes down to mainstream they'd have figured it out
 
That is patently false misinformation, Nielo TM. In fact, that is so incredibly foolish I've got to believe you have some sort of ulterior motive in stating it.
 
SED being basically a flat CRT would have had impressive motion clarity.

You can argue the benefits of other technologies, but where motion is concerned the death of SED is indeed a tragedy :(
 
wabbitseason said:
That is patently false misinformation, Nielo TM. In fact, that is so incredibly foolish I've got to believe you have some sort of ulterior motive in stating it.
Click to expand...

For stating Panasonic plasma is becoming on par with SED?

You do realize the 2012 models managed to reach ANSI black level of 0.009 cd/m2 and the 2013 models are expected to reach 0.005 cd/m2 (on par with the SED demo unit). 2012 models also yielded 1080 lines of motion resolution.
 
Last edited:
Chaoss said:
OLED doesn't have the same problems as LCD tech so there would be NO motion blur, no need for image processing so no input lag (although I can imagine some companies will put image processing into some units) and no ghosting.
Click to expand...

OLED displays are based on Active Matrix, which do blur. Thankfully it can be removed via pulse emulation. Basically inserting black frame between every other frame
 
Last edited:
sadbuttrue said:
SED being basically a flat CRT would have had impressive motion clarity.

You can argue the benefits of other technologies, but where motion is concerned the death of SED is indeed a tragedy :(
Click to expand...
So is plasma. The only difference is plasma uses UV where SED uses electrons
 
Nielo TM said:
For stating Panasonic plasma is becoming on par with SED?

You do realize the 2012 models managed to reach ANSI black level of 0.009 cd/m2 and the 2013 models are expected to reach 0.005 cd/m2 (on par with the SED demo unit). 2012 models also yielded 1080 lines of motion.
Click to expand...

Oh wow, black level and 1080p. /facepalm.

Motion clarity. Zero trails or overdrive errors. Analog signal. No sample-and-hold smudginess. Adjustable refresh rate.

None of those things must matter to you.

SED is the ultimate display technology, as any informed member of this forum will tell you. Plasma and OLED are undeniably superior to LCD, but they have their own disadvantages. SED took the disadvantages of CRT and completely erased them.
 
Lets keep the discussion civil wabbit.

Nielo TM said:
For stating Panasonic plasma is becoming on par with SED?

You do realize the 2012 models managed to reach ANSI black level of 0.009 cd/m2 and the 2013 models are expected to reach 0.005 cd/m2 (on par with the SED demo unit). 2012 models also yielded 1080 lines of motion.
Click to expand...

My 2012 Panasonic Plasma may yield 1080 lines of motion in some tests, but the long phosphor decay make it painful to watch at times. Like an LCD with excessive overdrive, the faster you pan the more painful those phosphor trails become.
 
wabbitseason said:
Oh wow, black level and 1080p. /facepalm.

Motion clarity. Zero trails or overdrive errors. Analog signal. No sample-and-hold smudginess. Adjustable refresh rate.

None of those things must matter to you.

SED is the ultimate display technology, as any informed member of this forum will tell you. Plasma and OLED are undeniably superior to LCD, but they have their own disadvantages. SED took the disadvantages of CRT and completely erased them.
Click to expand...

Dude SED is driven via PWM (digital) and it has phosphor decay. It's far from the ultimate technology. In fact the only advantage it offers over plasma is black level.

PS: These days plasmas are driven between 50Hz and 144Hz. So they are very flexible. The consumer models don't support input higher than 60Hz mainly because there's no need. CEA timing max out at 60Hz.
 
Last edited:
sadbuttrue said:
Lets keep the discussion civil wabbit.



My 2012 Panasonic Plasma may yield 1080 lines of motion in some tests, but the long phosphor decay make it painful to watch at times. Like an LCD with excessive overdrive, the faster you pan the more painful those phosphor trails become.
Click to expand...

Not sure which model you have but there's hardly on my G30 (which is a 2011 model). The only issue I have is PWM noise around the edges during motion.

Also, high-motion videos shot by camera contain blur added either during filming or during post.
 
Last edited:
Leopardi said:
OLED has response times and input lag like CRT, so it would be much better than any LCD or plasma. And not a hint of ghosting.
Click to expand...
While OLED is wonderful, this is unfortunately inaccurate.
It depends on whether the OLED is sample-and-hold, or is pulse-modulated. OLED can be either.

If sample-and-hold, the motion blur is roughly as bad as a fast LCD.
If pulse-modulated, the motion blur depends on the pulse length. If it's pulse modulated at a 50% duty cycle, motion blur will only reduce by 50%

Pulse modulation of OLED pixels, require OLED pixels to be as bright as CRT phosphor during its brief strobe period, and OLED has had difficulty attaining such brightness levels.

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon
BlurBusters.com Blog -- Eliminating Motion Blur
 
Last edited:
Nielo TM said:
OLED displays are based on Active Matrix, which do blur. Thankfully it can be removed via pulse emulation. Basically inserting black frame between every other frame
Click to expand...
RIght, but keep in mind that a 1:1 black frame insertion would only reduce motion blur by 50% (one black frame between every frame).
You really need the equivalent of 19:1 black frame insertion (19 black frames for every 1 visible frame) to reduce motion blur to 1/20 as much (95%), to be competitive with CRT.
For scientific purposes, to the human eye, a strobe (flash) lasting 1/20th of a refresh, is temporally equivalent to the human eyes, to a black frame insertion where 19 out of 20 frames are black.

To prevent a dim image, this requires OLED pixel brightness about 20 times brighter than the typical steady-state AMOLED pixel.
For example, OLED pixels strobed at 0.8 milliseconds during a 16.7ms refresh (1/60sec at 60Hz).
(This would flicker a lot, like a CRT, so a higher refresh rate is ideally needed -- such as 120Hz to compensate for CRT style flicker)

Bottom line -- OLED will be wonderful technology, but it wont necessarily have CRT perfect sharp motion ...

It will depend on the OLED, and many manufacturers will unfortunately err on the side of cheaper (less brightness, meaning less ability to do short strobes) and the text-friendliness of a steady, flicker-free displays. For flicker-free OLED displays not designed to strobe the pixels, even with 0ms instant pixel response, this type of OLED display will always have nearly as much motion blur as an LCD displaying the same refreshrate/framerate -- this is due to eye-tracking-based motion blurring (some call it "ghosting", but this is not accurate). Even on a modern 2ms LCD, since 2ms is less than 15% of a 16.7ms refresh, this means pixel persistence is only 15% of the cause of the motion blur. If you don't know the difference between pixel-persistence motion blur, and eye-tracking motion blur (Two very different causes of motion blur), see Science & References. Several academic papers, as well as from TV manufacturers, have tested and proven the distinction.

For sample and hold displays, 0ms instant pixel response is NOT zero motion blur
To reduce motion blur, you need impulse-driving (strobing, like CRT, Plasma, LightBoost), and/or frame interpolation.
Only impulse-driving is computer/gaming friendly, due to input lag of interpolation.

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon
BlurBusters.com Blog -- Eliminating Motion Blur
 
Last edited:
In the long run it may be possible to match the CRT by reducing retinal persistence. But ATM, 600 lines of motion is still an improvement.
 
Mark Rejhon said:
For sample and hold displays, 0ms instant pixel response is NOT zero motion blur

BlurBusters.com Blog -- Eliminating Motion Blur
Click to expand...

Why is this, do you mean that the blur is caused by image retention/caching in the eyes/brain?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top