Neowin.net

Once research costs are recovered and a respectable profit made*, everything drops in price.

* which is after all the motivation behind any non-military innovation.

Keep in mind that during early manufacturing of this kind of stuff, you've got to eat the cost of designing and then building the manufacturing equipment. Also, I'd wager that the raw materials used aren't being produced in quantities sufficient to have a low cost. Also also, there will be pretty high failure rates during production for a while.

You still use a CRT? LCD monitors are really good these days, even if they aren't OLEDs.

LCD will NEVER par up to a CRT. Thats why Ive been waiting for YEARS for a OLED display and FINALLY it seems that they will come out.

+1

LCDs are a lot better now, but they still can't come close to a CRT.

The fact that sometimes you need the widescreen output, plus the deformation that mid-range CRTs are prone to have, plus the strain to the eyes and the kind of gases expelled by the Cathodes made me ditch for ever the CRT world.

Right now, I'm waiting my DELL 24" with 110% gamut.

My CRT with 100hz is far better on my eyes than these POS LCD 5ms, 4ms or even 2ms LCD monitors I have used.

I am very sensitive to the slight blurring when scrolling through text or other motion such as video on an LCD
but most people probably are not like me.

I just have a 8ms Benq 19" WSXGA+ and I can't notice any bluring with it. I play all sorts of 3D games on it, and everything looks fine. I used to use a high-end Philips CRT 20" display (refreshed at 120 Hz) but I find less eye strain with the LCD.

Wow, you're calling the 2ms LCD monitor POS? They're blurry for you?

Sorry, but I think this is somewhat in your head, or you haven't seen any recent LCDs.

wahht? I wouldn't take any CRT over my Dell 2408, lets not forget CRT's are not HD capable.

After using LCD for many years i find CRT image quality to be blurry specially on a 3+ yo TV/Monitor. Cheap CRT monitors have a blurry image out of the box. That's ugly. Can't stand them anymore. CRT monitors give me headeach and strain my eyes after 2-3 hours of use.

I would not change my 1080p Sharp LCD TV for a CRT. Yes the view angle is not great (lot better than cheap lcd monitors) and the backlight is visible when the screen if dark. But the image is way more sharp than a CRT TV. Evene 1 meter away from the TV only it still looks good.

The article is not really accurate. There is currently a material for blue, but if has a lifespan of around 1/2 of what green and red offer (around 5 years for blue, 11 for red, green). This new material brings the blue lifespan on par with red and green.

I was going to say the same thing. Who wrote this stoopid article?

Indeed. Sony would be surprised to hear that their OLED products can't show blue...ahem.

'Fake' blue?

Virtually all commercially viable blue LEDs are based on InGaN, and the wavelength can be adjusted to anything we want in the blue range by adjusting the In/Ga ratio (and other devices features when needed). There is no 'blue' that we cannot produce with conventional LEDs.

If I had to guess, what you would consider a natural blue would have hints of green and red in it (That is, not be a single wavelength, but a composite of various colors). A very thin phosphor layer, to add some white light to the blue would probably be what you mean.

Also, all white LEDs are basically just blue LEDs with a phosphor layer that absorbs the blue light and spits out all sorts of wavelengths, giving you white light. The material that makes up the LED itself is not the target for improving the color balance of LEDs: The phosphor layer is.

It's also important to realize the difference between oLEDs and LEDs. oLEDs are thin film devices typically used in matrix displays. An LED is a device built into a semiconductor crystal. They're very different devices, and advances in one don't necessarily help the other out. A good old fashioned LED will last longer (it isn't vulnerable to the same degradation of its organic layer(s)), and I think they're more efficient. I'll have to check on that one, though.

Last edited by MioTheGreat on 24 Nov 2008 - 20:43

In a nutshell: Allies suck, Soviets rule.

Interesting.

We don't use conventional LEDs in screens right now except as backlights. An LCD uses a liquid crystal (You apply a field, and the crystal aligns itself, either blocking or transmitting the light from the backlight) and an actual color filter. So basically, only 1/3 of the light of the backlight can make it through due to that filter.

Well, if you're displaying any colour other than red, green or blue it probably isn't 1/3...

In the model usually given for an LCD, it's actually always less than 1/3.

Think about it. You have a white backlight, and then a color filter for every pixel: either red, blue, or green: each allowing approximately 1/3 of the light of the backlight through, each taking up 1/3 of the space.

Of course, the polarizer adds further inefficiency. The liquid crystal itself isn't so much an on/off filter as it is a polarizing filter, so you have to block out more light with an extra filter to make the crystal actually do something.

Keep in mind that this is a relatively simply model, and there are ways to improve on it. But the 'basic' color LCD technology is at best 1/3 efficient.

Anyone know the efficacy of a modern LCD screen displaying pure white? I don't.

Last edited by MioTheGreat on 24 Nov 2008 - 20:57

I donno about you guys but I do keep my TVs for 10+ years... LCD screens for 7 years now. But then again, 11 years sounds fine if the rest of the piece of hardware is environmental friendly enough....~

No, OLED is the killer ap in performance, power draw, quality, price, and product flexibility. Every major LCD player in the world is paying "licensing fees" (wink wink) to Sony to keep OLED off the market for just a little while longer while they try and recoup LCD costs via consumers.

Are you kidding? I was hoping that Sony could be as ruthless with OLED as they were in the Blu-ray/HD war.

Though I doubt any of the major technology companies will confirm this publicly, no, I am not kidding. In fact, the tipping point for the Blu-Ray vs. HDDVD war was actually the OLED issue. Since Sony was losing their shirt at the time with the failing PS3, they really didn't have any choice but to hold everyone hostage with OLED. That's why Sony released that prototype OLED screen you can see in all of their Sony Style stores. It's a big "we can bring this to market any time you want, gentlemen."

So if Blu-Ray didn't win, OLED was all Sony had left in its techno bag of tricks and they would have HAD to bring it to market to stay viable as a company over the next decade, thereby killing everything LCD everywhere (OLED is THE killer tech and everyone knows it).

But, surprise surprise, all those companies who didn't want to lose their shirts on LCD suddenly decided that Blu-Ray was the winner.

And with the death of HDDVD, Sony can now afford to wait and has seen the PS3 rebound (since it has a Blu-Ray drive in it and suddenly became a nice little "two-fer" - game console+home BD player). Meanwhile, everyone else gets another 2-3 years of LCD sales to recoup their investments and profit.

A win-win for everyone BUT Toshiba (creator of HDDVD) and the consumer, since we have to wait now with inferior LCD products.

Actually, that's not true. The two formats were neck and neck until the last studios on the fence made their choice, killing HDDVD. If you don't believe me, just check which studios are owned by or have corporate tie-ins with which hardware vendors. It's really easy to see the corporate machine turning if you know how the game works.

One thing is sure i was surprise to see companies droping HD-DVD so fast. Specially since HD-DVD players was selling at a good rate because they were cheaper than Blu-Ray players. In fact i recall reading that sales of Blu-Ray movies went down after the lost of HD-DVD. Price of Blu-Ray players is still over what HD-DVD players was before the end of the "war" and most people are still waiting for this price to go down before buying one. Let's say that for a winner Blu-Ray is not performing that great so far.

Yes, as soon as Blu-Ray won, all BD discs and players went up in price. While in normal times that would make sense to an MBA 101 candidate, in lean times, when you are trying to further sales of one of the only technologies you have that actually IS selling, I think it was a HUGE mistake for Sony to do this. Now, they are going to have a VERY lean Christmas and their "victory" is just going to be anemic sales stretched out over years...at a time when most of the younger generation just doesn't "get" physical media. If they'd played their cards right, uptake of Blu-Ray players could have happened all through this year and then when the recession hit, people would be buying discs as stocking stuffers, a win-win. But now, DVDs will be surprisingly strong this season, I predict.

They really do seem to be a company intent on shooting themselves in the foot at every opportunity.