Jump to content



Photo

OLED Television -- the next big thing

ces 2013 review new manufacturing process energy efficiency

  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#16 I am Reid

I am Reid

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,409 posts
  • Joined: 03-November 05
  • Location: Columbus, Ohio

Posted 19 January 2013 - 17:20

When I switched my laptop screen from the default 1366x768 glossy finish to 1080p matte finish I saw how there it was a world of difference between blacks in both screens, my current laptop bezel is black and I can say that my current display matches that level of black. My current panel isn't even IPS and gave me a huge color bost. My phone is a RAZRi and has an OLED pentile screen, while I do agree that it may have better blacks, the difference between my laptop's panel and the cellphone screen blacks remains almost null. 4K OLED screens are a no go for me, will go always for 4K IPS screens, plus they can resist screen burn in just no problem.


yeah, wait until you see an OLED screen that's larger than 4".


#17 Arceles

Arceles

    Time Craymel

  • 2,101 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 09
  • Location: 4th dimmension.
  • OS: Win 7 Ultimate / Win 8.1 Pro (With Start Menu Start8, otherwise is UNUSABLE) / Android 4.1.2 Jelly Bean
  • Phone: XT890 Motorola RAZRi (x86 processor)

Posted 19 January 2013 - 17:35

yeah, wait until you see an OLED screen that's larger than 4".


My cellphone is 4.3", but even so... no. the main deal with OLED is not that they aren't better than IPS, because indeed they are but that comes with a price, and that price is screen burn in, have you heard of programmed obsolescence? OLED screens are exactly that, until they cannot match a reliability as the LCD panels I will not want them, they may look better but my ease of mind comes from having products that have an expire date.

#18 brianshapiro

brianshapiro

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,930 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 02
  • Location: Encino, CA

Posted 19 January 2013 - 17:52

I'm paying attention to some of the more advanced color e-ink technology. Looks more exciting to me than OLED.

#19 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 21,390 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 19 January 2013 - 18:48

Technically they burn out, not in.. but anyway.

#20 citan

citan

    Neowinian

  • 224 posts
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 20 January 2013 - 02:26

if these displays do better than Pioneer Kuros i'll be all over them :)

#21 Oni Ray

Oni Ray

    Neowinian

  • 16 posts
  • Joined: 11-October 12
  • Location: India
  • OS: Windows 7 x64 and Windows 8 x64
  • Phone: LG Optimus One P500 (CM10 - JB 4.1.1)

Posted 20 January 2013 - 04:06

Actually that's another thing I've been wondering... What is the difference between OLED and IPS? And I assume that not all OLED TVs are 4k right, or are 4k TVs only IPS.


IPS/TN are panel technologies not display technologies. They are both different types of LCD panels ;)

#22 oliver182

oliver182

    Neowinian

  • 419 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 10
  • Location: Mexico
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Alcatel OneTouch Idol Ultra

Posted 20 January 2013 - 04:19

Technically they burn out, not in.. but anyway.


Am what?

Screen burn-IN

http://en.wikipedia..../Screen_burn-in

We are talking about this on OLEDs

#23 medhunter

medhunter

    Muslim Emergency physician

  • 505 posts
  • Joined: 19-June 11
  • Location: Egypt
  • OS: Win 7 SP1 Home Premium , Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, Xubuntu 13.04
  • Phone: Sony Sola

Posted 20 January 2013 - 06:35

I think OLED screens are far more energy efficient and enviroment friendly

#24 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • 8,598 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 20 January 2013 - 07:01

Not only that, but most TV stations will never broadcast HD (or 3D for that matter) or higher anyway, so these new TVs would be useless.
A solution looking for a problem (i.e. manufacturers looking for more ways to sucker the customer into spending big dollars on something they don't need).

Australia used to have FTA HD channels (and 3D channel), but the politicians caved into the TV stations demands and allowed them to use the bandwidth to multicast multiple channels instead. Now everything is Standard definition or lower.


Australia is an anomaly in the developed world - not the rule; the UK and the US have strong HDTV broadcast (and even cable/satellite) markets, and Japan is ahead of both.

In the United States, there are two HDTV formats - 720p (DIsney) and 1080i (Comcast, Discovery Communications, and TimeWarner) with broadcast TV using either one or the other (FOX uses 720p, while I include NBC - both broadcast and cable channels - with Comcast; CBS had adopted 1080i from the beginning, along with NBC and PBS). Rather amazingly, PBS and Discovery are major drivers of HDTV sales - any sales person with a clue will use real HD programming, not a loop, to sell HDTV - go to *any* Sony Style retail store, and see what's playing; same argument applies to the Magnolia Home Theater section of larger Best Buy stores.

While we have multicasters in the US, they are the exception, not the rule. (In fact, greater Washington, DC has a mere one that multicasts with NO HD content - however, that one multicasts international - not domestic - programming.)

#25 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • 8,598 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 20 January 2013 - 07:17

My cellphone is 4.3", but even so... no. the main deal with OLED is not that they aren't better than IPS, because indeed they are but that comes with a price, and that price is screen burn in, have you heard of programmed obsolescence? OLED screens are exactly that, until they cannot match a reliability as the LCD panels I will not want them, they may look better but my ease of mind comes from having products that have an expire date.


Also, LED-backlit and IPS can now scale to the same sizes as typical/traditional LCD or plasma panels - Sony's BRAVIA and Samsung's current generation of LED panels staqrt at 40" and go north to 84"; not one is a projection TV of any sort, which used to own the north-of-46" turf.

There is also the matter of bandwidth requirements - how is a greater-than-1080p picture going to get to you? Satellite has issues with merely 720p - while fiber optics CAN deliver 1080p by the trainload, it's expensive to deploy. (Ask Verizon OR Google - better yet, ask their bondholders.) The demand will appear in computer displays WELL before it arrives in terms of TVs simply because of the shortness of the delivery path - for a computer, it's just feet, if not inches. Even if OLED solves the burn-in and scaling problems, why would it be needed if the bandwidth to take advantage of it isn't there?

#26 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 21,390 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 20 January 2013 - 10:53

Am what?

Screen burn-IN

http://en.wikipedia..../Screen_burn-in

We are talking about this on OLEDs


YEs, and OLED's technically burn out. on other technologies, you get bright spots from the brights spots burning into the phosphor. LCD burn in is not the same of course(I'm talking actual LCD burn in, not image retention, which acts the same)

OLED Burn-in, whihc is technically a burn out, work the opposite way. bright pixels die faster fade out. So that bright annoying TV logo in the corner. when you show a all white picture on the screen, it will actually appear as a faded ghost, on a grey screen, it will also appear slightly darker than the rest. on a black screen, where all the OLED pixels are off, it will naturally not appear at all.

Hence, they technically burn out.

#27 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 21,390 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 20 January 2013 - 11:02

There is also the matter of bandwidth requirements - how is a greater-than-1080p picture going to get to you? Satellite has issues with merely 720p - while fiber optics CAN deliver 1080p by the trainload, it's expensive to deploy. (Ask Verizon OR Google - better yet, ask their bondholders.) The demand will appear in computer displays WELL before it arrives in terms of TVs simply because of the shortness of the delivery path - for a computer, it's just feet, if not inches. Even if OLED solves the burn-in and scaling problems, why would it be needed if the bandwidth to take advantage of it isn't there?


Uh, no it doesn't, downlink satellite has extremely good bandwidth, maybe your provided has really bad old satellites, but there's no truth to that.

Terrestrial however does have issues with 720, they have limited frequencies and bandwidth, and have to run few HD channels max 720, and at high compressions.

Over here we have two satellite companies, Canal Digital which I believe has their own satellites, they run 1080, at very high image quality and great audio, they score highest on both, and they have enough bandwidth to run as many HD Channels as they want. and we get new ones all the time as the tv channels upgrade. The other one, Viasat, I'm not sure if they have their own satellites or if they rent space, but while they run full HD, they have far lower image quality, even on SD, they use much higher compression on the image, and comparably crappy audio.

Cable of course offers comparable quality to that of satellite, because they use satellite as a source.

Also, you're assuming bandwidth requirements scale linearly with picture size. which it doesn't. Compression actually gets better on bigger images, since there's bigger surfaces of identical colors and shades and shapes and patterns to compress in the same space. so you can get 200% the picture, and as little or lower than 150% the size/bandwidth.

And then we haven't even accounted for the new super effective compression technology they're demonstrating now.

#28 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • 19,305 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 22 January 2013 - 08:37

Our TV networks aren't broadcasting much HD because they're cheap, we have 5 stations, 1 is government funded, and 2 are near bankrupt. And the HD content they do have is compressed to hell and back.

That said, TV stations not broadcasting in the latest format isn't a reason to avoid that format, broadcasters are always going to lag behind technology (You're not going to be able to watch a 4K video feed on a 1080p TV, but a 4K screen can show a 1080p feed, etc.)

Edit: Oh yeah, I'm in Australia. And personally I don't consider 1080i to be actual HD, since it only adds more horizontal data, the vertical is 540. That said my opinion on that doesn't matter.

#29 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 21,390 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 22 January 2013 - 10:08

Edit: Oh yeah, I'm in Australia. And personally I don't consider 1080i to be actual HD, since it only adds more horizontal data, the vertical is 540. That said my opinion on that doesn't matter.


Not entirely true

in general a 1080i picture is the same as a 1080p picture. the clue is in the fact that the 1080i picture is 1080i60, created from a 1080p30 source. Your tv or tuner, depending on, will re-assemble the 1080i60 picture into the correct 1080p30 picture.

If what you said was true, then a 720p tv picture would be better than the 1080i. which it is not. the terrestrial TV guy that visits us at the store occasionally tries to tell us it is. Then I switch to the terrestrial source, and have crappy 720p picture, not nearly as sharp, and contrary to his claim, the movements aren't better. switch back to the satellite feed, and beautiful 1080i, that's just as sharp as a 1080p BD, sure it has more compression, but that's not even detectable in regular viewing.

Your information, is however correct if you're talking about older home HD video camerasthat shot in 1080i. but thta's because these shot the video in interlaced.

#30 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • 19,305 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 22 January 2013 - 14:29

Right, I assumed they would have just used the normal framerate, but they apparently broadcast at 50hz (So 25fps progressive)

I kinda just assumed, considering how bad in general the quality of the HD channels actually is.