The Pros and Cons of OLED displays
Column Don't hold your breath.
By Marc Ninthly: 星期四 26 五月 2005, 11:29
SIZE DOESN'T matter. My wife tells me that a lot and I believe her. I have to because the alternative is too depressing. However, when it comes to flat-panel displays – be they plasma or LCD – size definitely comes into its own. Stick your 15-inch midgets where the sun don't shine. Maybe it's a bloke thing. Maybe it's a "compensation-for-something-else thing", but whatever the reason, when it comes to flat panels the only good'un is big'un. Personally, I use a projector with a minimum 100in image. Obviously, the shrinks and nay sayers would claim that's because I have to compensate more than most. I say: mind your own damn business.
The only problem with LCDs and plasma screens – roughly 37-inch to 50-inch models – is that they are not cheap and the quality is not guaranteed. And most so-called flat panel "bargains" from the big retailers and etailers are shoddy, lower-grade products that produce images with all the clarity of fog. Others are so expensive they make my nose bleed. That's why OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) screens offer so much to look forward too.
And this week, Samsung upped the ante dramatically by taking the wraps off the world's first single-sheet, 40-inch active matrix OLED panel for flat panel TV production. Up until now it's been piddly little 20-inch and 21-inch prototypes. Samsung is showing off the beauty at this week's Society for Information Display (SID) 2005 gathering in Boston, if you happen to be passing and you need a good drool. So what's so special? Well, it is a wide-screen panel with 1280x800 resolution, is high definition ready (with some scaling) for the next generation of DVDs and TV broadcasts, and is generally better than any LCD equivalent.
I had my credit card in a fevered grip before I got a grip, and let the reality of the situation pop my balloon of childish excitement. You won't actually be able to buy one until late next year or early 2007. Arrrgh!! I have been hearing about bloody OLEDs for so long now that I finally thought they had it cracked and the damned things had made it past mobile phones and onto the shelves. It was not to be. But 40-inch is a good sign. A very good sign for OLEDs – which many feel are the future of displays. Not just another type of display but one which, in hushed tones and in darkened corners, the meek and the geeks refer to as "The One".
You may ask, what do you mean? Or "Huh?". Well, if the techies are to be believed, OLEDs are the way forward for little and big screen deployment. OLED displays are made up of organic light emitting polymers which light up themselves when a current is passed through. Unlike LCD panels, there's no backlight needed. In general, OLEDs deliver brighter images, higher contrast ratios, wider viewing angles and, without the need for a backlight, require less power to run. This makes them ideal for phones, notebooks etc. But we are here to talk about big screens that will be plugged in so forget power savings. Even better, OLEDs will allow for even thinner screens - around three centimetres - and are cheaper to produce than LCDs because they use less materials and the polymers can be "printed" onto plastic or glass sheets using a process similar to inkjet printing. Theoretically, they will be cheaper to produce and so should be cheaper to buy.
But, and here we go, since when did billion dollar LCD/plasma manufacturers – themselves being ridden hard by drooling profiteer shareholders - ever shoot themselves in the foot by producing something that makes less money? Exactly. Lots of prototypes but no rush towards commercialisation. The juicy LCD/plasma market has still plenty of squeezing in it and it will be at least 18 months before the mad dash to mainstream occurs.
Then there are the technical hurdles. OLEDs promise a lot and will probably deliver, if only they can surmount some technical glitches. The main one is lifespan. Since the material in use is organic, it has a tendency to well, rot. Not what you want from your brand spanking new and expensive anorexic wall-hanging TV. Apparently, red and green polymers are sturdy enough but it's the damn blue ones that need a lot of work. Still, big advances have been made and the whole "rotting" snag is being worked out.
I have thought about getting a flat panel but I'm in no rush. My 32-inch widescreen CRT (now a blasphemous term in our new, flat-panel world) outperforms the images on any skinny panel so far. Also, if you have the space, why compromise on something that will cost you at least twice as much for less performance?
Still, the CRT will be about ready to retire its fat ass in a couple of years. Just in time for OLEDs is my guess. To see what the future of TVs looks like now, check out some pics of that 40-inch model below. But first, I'd like to point out that that the lady in the picture is referring to the width of the screen, nothing else. Really.
By Marc Ninthly: 星期四 26 五月 2005, 11:29
SIZE DOESN'T matter. My wife tells me that a lot and I believe her. I have to because the alternative is too depressing. However, when it comes to flat-panel displays – be they plasma or LCD – size definitely comes into its own. Stick your 15-inch midgets where the sun don't shine. Maybe it's a bloke thing. Maybe it's a "compensation-for-something-else thing", but whatever the reason, when it comes to flat panels the only good'un is big'un. Personally, I use a projector with a minimum 100in image. Obviously, the shrinks and nay sayers would claim that's because I have to compensate more than most. I say: mind your own damn business.
The only problem with LCDs and plasma screens – roughly 37-inch to 50-inch models – is that they are not cheap and the quality is not guaranteed. And most so-called flat panel "bargains" from the big retailers and etailers are shoddy, lower-grade products that produce images with all the clarity of fog. Others are so expensive they make my nose bleed. That's why OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) screens offer so much to look forward too.
And this week, Samsung upped the ante dramatically by taking the wraps off the world's first single-sheet, 40-inch active matrix OLED panel for flat panel TV production. Up until now it's been piddly little 20-inch and 21-inch prototypes. Samsung is showing off the beauty at this week's Society for Information Display (SID) 2005 gathering in Boston, if you happen to be passing and you need a good drool. So what's so special? Well, it is a wide-screen panel with 1280x800 resolution, is high definition ready (with some scaling) for the next generation of DVDs and TV broadcasts, and is generally better than any LCD equivalent.
I had my credit card in a fevered grip before I got a grip, and let the reality of the situation pop my balloon of childish excitement. You won't actually be able to buy one until late next year or early 2007. Arrrgh!! I have been hearing about bloody OLEDs for so long now that I finally thought they had it cracked and the damned things had made it past mobile phones and onto the shelves. It was not to be. But 40-inch is a good sign. A very good sign for OLEDs – which many feel are the future of displays. Not just another type of display but one which, in hushed tones and in darkened corners, the meek and the geeks refer to as "The One".
You may ask, what do you mean? Or "Huh?". Well, if the techies are to be believed, OLEDs are the way forward for little and big screen deployment. OLED displays are made up of organic light emitting polymers which light up themselves when a current is passed through. Unlike LCD panels, there's no backlight needed. In general, OLEDs deliver brighter images, higher contrast ratios, wider viewing angles and, without the need for a backlight, require less power to run. This makes them ideal for phones, notebooks etc. But we are here to talk about big screens that will be plugged in so forget power savings. Even better, OLEDs will allow for even thinner screens - around three centimetres - and are cheaper to produce than LCDs because they use less materials and the polymers can be "printed" onto plastic or glass sheets using a process similar to inkjet printing. Theoretically, they will be cheaper to produce and so should be cheaper to buy.
But, and here we go, since when did billion dollar LCD/plasma manufacturers – themselves being ridden hard by drooling profiteer shareholders - ever shoot themselves in the foot by producing something that makes less money? Exactly. Lots of prototypes but no rush towards commercialisation. The juicy LCD/plasma market has still plenty of squeezing in it and it will be at least 18 months before the mad dash to mainstream occurs.
Then there are the technical hurdles. OLEDs promise a lot and will probably deliver, if only they can surmount some technical glitches. The main one is lifespan. Since the material in use is organic, it has a tendency to well, rot. Not what you want from your brand spanking new and expensive anorexic wall-hanging TV. Apparently, red and green polymers are sturdy enough but it's the damn blue ones that need a lot of work. Still, big advances have been made and the whole "rotting" snag is being worked out.
I have thought about getting a flat panel but I'm in no rush. My 32-inch widescreen CRT (now a blasphemous term in our new, flat-panel world) outperforms the images on any skinny panel so far. Also, if you have the space, why compromise on something that will cost you at least twice as much for less performance?
Still, the CRT will be about ready to retire its fat ass in a couple of years. Just in time for OLEDs is my guess. To see what the future of TVs looks like now, check out some pics of that 40-inch model below. But first, I'd like to point out that that the lady in the picture is referring to the width of the screen, nothing else. Really.
posted by C.H. Chen @ 4:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home