Print 74 comment(s) - last by elpresidente20.. on Oct 16 at 2:34 AM

The XEL-1 OLED TV sports vivid color and contrast.  (Source: Sony Japan)

The XEL-1 OLED TV's razor thin profile.  (Source: Sony Japan)
Sony introduced the world's first OLED TV, which is quite a looker, carries a high price tag, and is only available in Japan

At 3 millimeters thin, Sony’s XEL-1 OLED TV seems to float on the air.  The almost paper-thin display hovers ethereally mounted on a beam, which is juxtaposed onto a thick pedestal base, which sharply contrasts the screens thickness.  The design of the device is very similar to the "Anglepoise" Mac and very modern in design.

The 11-inch XEL-1 brings a lot of innovation to the table at a relatively high price.  The unit, set to go on sale December 1 in Japan only, was unveiled on Sony Japan's website over the weekend. 

The device will cost ¥200,000, or around $1,744 USD -- about twice the price of a 40" LCD TV in Japan.

Overall (base included) the device has measurements of 287×253×140mm and weighs in at 2 kilograms (4.4 pounds).  It sports a 1080p input resolution, though the screen resolution only measures 960 x 540, so it downscales the image to fit the screen.

One of its more impressive features is a sharp
1,000,000:1 contrast ratio and the 45W power consumption.  According to Sony, this represents a 40 percent power reduction over conventional LCD monitors.

Sony touts the device as a display revolution.  They claim that the device has very fast response times -- up to 1,000 times faster than LCD displays -- though no test information was presented to support these claims.

The XEL-1 also boasts superior color and brightness.  The brightness is due to the OLEDs' natural electroluminescence as well as reflected light, which reflects off of "micro-cavities" within the OLED.  The end result, according to Sony, is a much brighter TV without the need for backlights.  The color is also superior and more natural according to Sony.  They explain that with flexible brightness, it is easier to reproduce the full spectrum of colors than in a device which can only be backlit or dark.

In the past, OLED displays have been crippled due to a relatively short lifespan compared to LCDs.  The XEL-1 seems to have this covered, with a declared 30,000 hour lifespan (roughly the equivalent of watching TV eight hours a day for ten years).  An average LCD lifespan is 50,000 hours, so while slightly lower, the XEL-1 isn't that far behind.

The device features some nice extras in terms of ports as well.  It has an integrated digital TV tuner for Japan, USB, LAN interface, one HDMI port, headphones plug and S-Force sound.

Despite its attractive features, Sony plans to limit its initial production to 2,000 units a month.  In contrast, its LCD TV business sells over 10 million TVs a year.

There is no word from Sony, however, on if and when the display will cross the ocean and reach the U.S. Given that Sony is heralding the XEL-1 as the start of a new sector of its TV business, it is safe to say its OLED displays will soon be coming to the U.S.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Value for money
By Fire404 on 10/2/2007 9:55:03 AM , Rating: 2
from the link
"Sony recently announced that it will begin sale of its upcoming 11-inch OLED based TV this December"

For $1735?!?!?!? $158 per inch. One for the truly hardcore early adopters then...

It is beautiful tho (ignoring the stand which I presume must hold all the connections as the ports would be thicker than the display)

RE: Value for money
By elpresidente2075 on 10/2/2007 10:09:09 AM , Rating: 1
Of course! It's Sony! They never release a new technology at a real, good price level for normal consumers to buy. Cases in point: Betamax, Minidisk, UMD, PS3.

The fact that they're coming to market at all is a good thing though. Earlier this year they promised these within this time frame, and obviously they've done it. Fortunately, since there is a much lower cost involved in producing these panels(once the ramp starts), they should quickly become quite cheap. My next laptop/tablet I get (haven't decided which) will have a screen based on this technology, so I hope they get to it soon!

Sony :( , Technology :)

RE: Value for money
By BansheeX on 10/2/2007 11:14:46 AM , Rating: 1
Ah, the viral anti-Sony hate continues. Any idea how many millions Sony has pumped into researching and developing OLED to even get to this level? I'm guessing they're in the black right now and banking on the future profitability for justification of this initial debt. And unlike some proprietary format, you will be licking Sony's boots when this tech becomes mainstream. This is not a Sony-specific pricing strategy. Every time a brand new tech comes to market, they are marketing to enthusiasts for stratospheric prices to recoup R&D costs.

RE: Value for money
By Martin Blank on 10/2/2007 11:30:47 AM , Rating: 5
If they're in the black on OLEDs, they're already making profit.

In the red = loss
In the black = profit

It comes from the accounting world, where those colors represent negative and non-negative numbers, respectively.

RE: Value for money
By BansheeX on 10/2/2007 11:53:09 AM , Rating: 3
My bad. You can tell I meant to say red because I refer to debt in the same sentence.

RE: Value for money
By IcY18 on 10/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: Value for money
By idconstruct on 10/3/2007 2:02:46 AM , Rating: 1
No. He was, in fact, right.

In the red = loss
In the black = profit

His explanation is also correct.

You are either making money or losing money... in the unlikely situation that you break exactly even, you would represent that with a (black) "$0"

RE: Value for money
By elpresidente2075 on 10/16/2007 2:34:59 AM , Rating: 2
If only it were only Sony making these technologies. Sure, they are first to market, but let me list some of the other companies that will surely be competing (and possibly winning) in the same market space:

Chi Mei EL Corporation (the big dogs)

Don't forget the dozens of patents Kodak has for this tech.

But I digress. Black/Red, whatever, the comment about pricing strategies was made more as a joke than anything.

Ah, the internet. Lots o' fun isn't it? Er'buddy's got something to say, and everyone else is wrong and also stupid.

Yarr, it's drivin' me nuts!

RE: Value for money
By DeepBlue1975 on 10/2/2007 11:16:53 AM , Rating: 3
You can't expect any company to come out with cutting edge technology that's still pine-tree-high expensive to produce.

And I have strong reasons to think that OLED displays are yet very difficult to get right, as if it weren't that the case, they would have come out with a 50" set for $50k to really appeal to hardcore early adopters with lots of money to spend.

But no, they are releasing a 11" screen at a price that, while really expensive for the size, could be payed by most of the people out there.

I guess they can't get bigger OLEDs out of the oven as of yet... And based on that, I would guess that this kind of display technology could end up in notebooks, UMPCs and portable movie players first

RE: Value for money
By idconstruct on 10/3/2007 2:11:56 AM , Rating: 2
First off, one of the notorious benefits of OLEDs are the fact that they're very cheap to manufacture.

Also, there have been mobile OLED products available for quite a while now, such as Creative's 'Zen V Plus' and the 'Zen MicroPhoto'

RE: Value for money
By Zoomer on 10/3/2007 10:22:57 PM , Rating: 2
Defects. The likelihood of a 1" screen havings defects are orders of magnitudes lower than a 11".

RE: Value for money
By Fire404 on 10/2/2007 11:28:26 AM , Rating: 2
Woah I wasnt Sony hating (i'm almost a fanboy tbh...), merely pointing out the cost per inch is really high atm and therefore purely for the rich/extreame early adopters. I was just "commenting" on the article.

So please dont try to turn my comment into an anti-Sony thread. Leave me out of that pointless debate please! :)

RE: Value for money
By BansheeX on 10/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: Value for money
By Fire404 on 10/3/2007 2:22:55 AM , Rating: 2
I think you are, look who I replied to ;) He sounded like he thought he was on the same page as me. Just wanted to make clear we didn't share the same views.

RE: Value for money
By mars777 on 10/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: Value for money
By elpresidente2075 on 10/16/2007 2:23:50 AM , Rating: 2
Seems people have taken offense at my first three sentences and forgot to understand the whole post.

Perhaps people should learn to read and understand an entire post before hating it. My point was that Sony's made some great stuff in the past (refer to parent) but it's always been incredibly expensive at launch. That's all.

However, seems you've guessed that I hate Sony, and in that you'd be correct, but for an entirely different reason than you assume (ass-u-me):

Two words: Business practices
Context: Music/Movies
Relevance: None

RE: Value for money
By Kuroyama on 10/2/2007 1:43:21 PM , Rating: 2
For $1735?!?!?!? $158 per inch.

That's probably why it's only selling in Japan. Nowhere else are people willing to pay such large amounts of money for tiny electronics.

When I left Japan in 1998 most desktops were sold with an LCD screen, but when I returned to the US I don't recall anyone I know having an LCD other than on a laptop. Of course, you paid a lot more there, but no one wanted an ugly CRT even if they'd save a lot of money.

RE: Value for money
By Oregonian2 on 10/2/2007 3:22:51 PM , Rating: 2
Are they really selling in Japan, or is it only being offered there? I can't imagine why anybody would buy one at that price (especially when it's so small).

At least the DailyTech version of article didn't claim (as a general news article did yesterday about it that I saw somewhere in Google News) that it was the only technology that didn't use backlighting, and that's why it's so good. :-)

RE: Value for money
By Nighteye2 on 10/3/2007 3:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
All products are expensive when they first get launched. Displays with this technology will get cheaper as production processes are improved upon and volume gets ramped up.

1,000,000:1 contrast?
By zombiexl on 10/2/2007 9:52:17 AM , Rating: 2
Seems like quite a jump form the 15000:1 or so i'm used to seeing on higher mid-range LCDs.

I cant wait to see some actual data to back up the the contrast and speed claims. I really cant wait for someone besides sony to enter this market and sell in the US.

RE: 1,000,000:1 contrast?
By FrankM on 10/2/2007 10:16:21 AM , Rating: 2
Backlight vs no backlight. Different technologies, so you can't really compare it to an LCD.

RE: 1,000,000:1 contrast?
By GreenyMP on 10/2/2007 10:57:21 AM , Rating: 2
You can compare it, like you can compare an apple to an orange. LCDs are getting better contrast ratios when they are backed with LEDs. That way a darker portion of the screen can dim the backlight in only that portion of the screen. I think people have been able to achieve 100,000:1 with this type of trickery. But that should in no way diminish the importance of this announcement. Better contrast ratio without fancy trickery, significantly higher refresh, significantly lower power consumption, thinner and lighter displays, and for cheaper (after the initial R&D costs are covered). And the downside is that it dies in 10 years instead of 15. Revolutionary.

RE: 1,000,000:1 contrast?
By idconstruct on 10/3/2007 2:39:54 AM , Rating: 2

If we couldn't compare different technologies then this statement: "A Core 2 Duo is faster than a Pentium II" -is invalid?

RE: 1,000,000:1 contrast?
By Awax on 10/3/2007 5:15:02 AM , Rating: 2
WARNING, there are different types of LCD LED backlighting.

Laptops currently released with LED backlighting are using them the same way they were using the previous light source : the same light level for the whole screen. The color accuracy is just a little bit better, the consumption is lower and the screen can be a bit thinner.

Screen using LED to create sub section in the backlighting are VERY thick and VERY VERY expensive.

Anyway, the main difference between LCD and Plasma/OLED/SED is the way the light is generated. In the LCD, you have a blacklight, blocked by the LCD. In a Plasma/OLED/SED, every pixel is its own light source. As blocking light is harder then not generating it, LCD will always be disadvantaged. The trick used by LCD maker is to get closer to other screen technology : have a light source dedicated per pixel or pixel group.

RE: 1,000,000:1 contrast?
By GaryJohnson on 10/2/2007 10:22:43 AM , Rating: 2
Typical LCDs share the same light source for all pixels, whereas each pixel in an OLED is emissive (each pixel lights individually).

RE: 1,000,000:1 contrast?
By Oregonian2 on 10/4/2007 6:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
But isn't that true of Plasma technology as well (each color's subcell within a pixel has some phosphor that gives off its color's light, much like a CRT, but no "CR" or "T" for that matter -- the plasma replaces the CR and the "T" is flat more-or-less, the Plasma sets are basically massively reconfigured CRTs as best I can tell) ?.

RE: 1,000,000:1 contrast?
By GaryJohnson on 10/7/2007 11:17:09 AM , Rating: 2
From wikipedia:

Each cell on a plasma display has to be precharged before it is due to be illuminated (otherwise the cell would not respond quickly enough) and this precharging means the cells can never be truly black.

Most of the plasma displays @ newegg seem to get rated with a 10,000:1 contrast ratio.

So while plasma displays do use emissive pixels (giving them better contrast than typical LCDs) I think OLED technology allows absolute control of the emissivity, giving it a contrast ratio limited only by its maximum brightness.

RE: 1,000,000:1 contrast?
By kilkennycat on 10/2/2007 11:05:17 AM , Rating: 2
Seems like quite a jump form the 15000:1 or so i'm used to seeing on higher mid-range LCDs.

Pray tell me exactly which LCD models have 15,000:1 contrast ratio --- worst-case measured over the whole screen area.

RE: 1,000,000:1 contrast?
By zombiexl on 10/2/2007 11:16:58 AM , Rating: 2
Most newer (last year or so) samsungs are listed as 15000:1.

RE: 1,000,000:1 contrast?
By ira176 on 10/2/2007 2:44:12 PM , Rating: 2
Companies are confusing consumers over advertised contrast ratios. There are two standars by which companies try to lure consumers. 1. Standard contrast ratio which is usually 1000:1 or a little higher or Dynamic contrast ratio which I've seen as high as 15000:1. I often see only the higher dynamic contrast ratio advertised on certain LCD's. Companies still take advantage of the consumer mentality that higher (or more) is better. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe both types of contrast ratio measurements are applicable to any LCD panel.

RE: 1,000,000:1 contrast?
By erikejw on 10/2/2007 6:14:38 PM , Rating: 3
The best LCDs have about 1000:1 or up tp 1200:1
Any other claims is just bogus and worthless unless you watch low APL scenes. It is dynamic contrast they use and most videofiles just turn it off for a better pic.

JVSc latest LCos projector have a 30000:1 native contrast though and is outstanding in the industry right now.

45w is lower power use than LCD's?
By Lonyo on 10/2/2007 10:02:29 AM , Rating: 2
My 17" LCD uses IIRC a max of 40w (it's either 20w or 40w), and this 11" OLED uses 45w. I would assume a 17" OLED would use a fair whack more than 40w, even if it does offer higher contrast ratios.

RE: 45w is lower power use than LCD's?
By blaster5k on 10/2/2007 10:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the power numbers seem a little screwy. I've measured the power consumption on my Dell 2001FP 20" LCD and if I remember correctly it was at 45W in normal use. An 11" monitor would need to have a much smaller number to be an improvement over LCD.

By MrBungle123 on 10/2/2007 11:14:41 AM , Rating: 3
I'm not sure if it makes any difference but this thing has a TV tuner in it in addition to the display, is it possible that the electronics for viewing TV are eating up the extra power?

RE: 45w is lower power use than LCD's?
By Canizorro on 10/2/2007 11:33:30 AM , Rating: 3
I believe what they were pointing out was that it used only 45 watts of power to accomplish a 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio. Your LCD probably only does a 10,000:1 contrast ratio at 40 watts. So the amount of power it would take to theoretically increase the contrast ratio of a conventional LCD to the 1,000,000:1 ratio would take 40% more power or vice versa.

RE: 45w is lower power use than LCD's?
By Anonymous Freak on 10/2/2007 3:10:12 PM , Rating: 5
Nope. Contrast ratio does not require more power.

BRIGHTNESS requires more power, but one of the big selling points (theoretically) of OLEDs was that they offered much higher brightness for less power because on an OLED, the display pixels themselves are emitting the light, whereas on an LCD, you have transparent pixels that are lit from behind. (So if you show a 100% black image on an LCD, you are essentially 'wasting' all the power of the backlight, whereas a 100% black image on an OLED will be using almost no power, because it won't even be emitting any light.) And, in fact, the reason an OLED achieves this incredible contrast ratio is because dark parts are actually DARK, not just a 'covered up light source', which means the darker parts should be drawing LESS power.)

The recent improvement in LCD power usage has been to change the backlight from a compact fluorescent or cold cathode tube to an array of white LEDs.

In addition, the claim that the TV tuner causes the power increase is also bogus. My MacBook Pro with a USB TV tuner, 15.4" LCD screen on full brightness, only draws 40 Watts. And it's using the main processor to decode the 1080i signal, not a dedicated (aka "low power") decoder chip. (I figured out the power draw using Apple's System Profiler - Power tab. 11949 mV at 3288 mA, do the math, you get 39.28 Watts.)

By Canizorro on 10/6/2007 10:06:31 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it does require more power for a higher contrast ratio when using conventional LCD technology. As it is expressed now, to gain a higher contrast ratio you would need to increase the brightest point or lower the darkest point. So to say that it's only the brightness that requires more power is false, as increasing the brightness also increases the contrast ratio. And to increase the contrast ratio without using more power to increase the brightness point will mean using a different method of lowering the darkest point.

By munky on 10/2/2007 9:49:34 AM , Rating: 4
I wish this technology would appear sooner in PC monitors, I would definitely go for it.

RE: Nice
By ultimaone on 10/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By FrankM on 10/2/2007 10:19:59 AM , Rating: 5
There's no such thing as OLCD ;)
There's Organic Light Emitting Diode, OLED.
There's Liquid Crystal Display, LCD.
There's also Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD.
But no OLCD.
(Wish people would stop confusing things, especially abreviations...)

RE: Nice
By Justin Case on 10/2/2007 11:51:01 AM , Rating: 4

RE: Nice
By DeepBlue1975 on 10/2/2007 1:03:10 PM , Rating: 4

By DeepBlue1975 on 10/2/2007 10:12:05 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not too excited about contrast ratio, though:

OLEDs don't use backlighting, so blacks are truly black, not some mid-dark shade of grey.

If your black point is near 0, your white point could be a crappy and not so white shade of grey and your contrast ratio would be still sky high, as that ratio is nothing else than the quotient between the white point and the black point.
I guess a statement of white point and black point and a graph showing the actual gamut and color temperatures would be much more accurate.

RE: Awesome!
By AnnihilatorX on 10/2/2007 10:20:36 AM , Rating: 2
I suppose that depends on how well lit the room is, and how bright the OLED can output

I've seen OLED screens in portable players and the white seen bright enough

RE: Awesome!
By geddarkstorm on 10/2/2007 2:04:26 PM , Rating: 1
1,000,000 more than zero is still 1,000,000. What would be important to know is how they measure brightness in relation to contrast. Basically, 1,000,000 units of what.

RE: Awesome!
By s12033722 on 10/2/2007 4:38:43 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, contrast ratios are not additive, they are multiplicative, so 1,000,000 times more than zero is in fact zero. That's what the above poster is referencing. The contrast ratio means that a fully white pixel is one million times brighter than a dark one. That is certainly possible, since almost no light should be coming out of an OLED pixel that is turned off.

Consider this case. An LCD TV has a 10000 to 1 contrast ratio. An OLED has a 1000000 to 1 contrast ratio, but the dark pixel is 1000x darker than the LCD. Now, since the bright pixel of the LCD is 10000 times brighter than the dark pixel of the LCD, and the dark LCD is 1000 times brighter than the dark pixel of the OLED, the bright LCD pixel is 10x brighter than the OLED. That's what he is concerned about.

I have an additional concern: What's the controllable contrast ratio (dynamic range)? So a 0 is 1000000x dimmer than full on, what is a 1? How about a 10? I'd be pretty shocked if that is beyond a 4096 to 1 contrast ratio (12-bit).

RE: Awesome!
By idconstruct on 10/3/2007 2:33:28 AM , Rating: 2
The ratios are actually exponential. As you approach absolute blackness, the contrast ratio goes to infinity. Not that it really changes the meaning of your post, but I just thought I'd add that.

Oh, and a general statement, everyone seems to be thinking that normal LCD contrast ratios are around and upwards of ten thousand to one... My $700 24" LCD is 1000:1 which is above the average, which is about 800:1 ... and the highest contrast I found after searching newegg was 3000:1, which is probably due, in part, to a dim backlight.

RE: Awesome!
By geddarkstorm on 10/4/2007 1:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
But, contast ratios are 1,000,000:1. In words, one million to one. That is, absolute black would be put to 1. Even in your LCD TV comparison, it's 10,000 TO 1. Since 1 becomes the standard that you are making your adjustment on, there is no zero, so it isn't negated. However, you are still right in that an LCD's 1 is different from the perceived darkness of an OLED's 1.

Nevertheless! The fact that the brightest pixel on an OLED is a million times greater than its base (1) pixel, to our eyes, that's HUGE. Contrast is a major issue in human sight, and better contrast gives better details even in low light. Now, the amount of illumination, or amount of light, simply put off by each pixel is a totally different issue, which everyone seems to be confusing.

RE: Awesome!
By geddarkstorm on 10/4/2007 1:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
I also meant to add:

There are plenty of contrast illusions out there you can look up if you want. You can make something that's a lighter shade of gray appear much darker (or lighter!) just by playing with the constrast environment it is within. is a site with a few examples.

So then, to our brains, a 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio is a far greater thing than 10,000:1 no matter where the 1 starts (within reason of the rest of the environment you are in, as in, if the frame around the monitor is much darker than the monitor's 1, then its 1 will never be black to your perception)

By Rotkiv on 10/2/2007 11:15:52 AM , Rating: 2
I am no expert, but would ghosting be a problem?(is it related to response time?)

RE: Ghosting?
By Rovemelt on 10/2/2007 12:06:32 PM , Rating: 3
I was wondering the same thing. I imagine that an OLED pixel turning on/off must happen almost instantaneously compared to how fast we can visually process the event. I imagine the screen must refresh as fast as the electronics that drive the screen.

Anyone know anything else about this?

RE: Ghosting?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/2/2007 12:50:53 PM , Rating: 1
I think you mean what used to be called "submarining" named after the tendency of a mouse to disappear when dragged across old laptop screens, only to reappear in the new location after a few seconds. Ghosting refers to echos in the video signal, like I have on one of my monitors due to signal bouncing off the pin ends of the extension cables. ANYWAY... this is what the press release says on response times:

5.High animated picture efficiency: It reproduces also the quick movement of sport and the like smoothlyOrganic EL because on & off of the light which comes out of organic layer can be controlled instantaneously, is superior in response efficiency. By the organic EL drive circuit of new development, the image where the movement of sport and the like is quick smooth, it is possible at the same time to express naturally. (Thanks for the translation, Google =)

The claim that it is superior in response efficiency leads me to believe that it is superior to LCD or other mainstream technologies, so ghosting, or submarining, shouldn't be an issue.

By steffato on 10/2/2007 2:29:40 PM , Rating: 2
Samsung is not lying when it advertises its TVs as 15000:1 contrast ratio panels. That's why it is dynamic contrast. Depending ont the content of each frame, it adjusts the backlight luminance accordingly. However there is no way to achieve over 1700:1 contrast ratio in a single frame. I don't count in local dimming techniques, except if Samsung comes to a point that each pixel on the panel has its own LED behind it. Of course there is no point in making such a panel ;-). For the moment the highest static contrast ratio an LCD can sport is 1700:1 and this I belive is the most annoying drawback of LCD technology. In other words no LCD panel today can display proper blacks. So there is no comparison to OLED panels. The difference between these and an LCD must be day and night, not counting the much faster response times and as it seems viewing angles. Even if these panels lasted for only 2-3 years I would choose these over any LCD. I surely enjoy my Smamsung Tvs and monitors but I trully miss the trinitron blacks. Hopefully with OLED we will have the best of both worlds. That's good technology.

By DarkElfa on 10/2/2007 5:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
Meh, all of you cheezits know that if you had the money, you'd buy one today. ;)

By boing on 10/4/2007 9:17:51 AM , Rating: 2
our first colour tv lasted 25 years, i don't expect todays tech to be that sturdy but i'd be furious if it only lasted 3 years. i'd be looking for a good solid 10 years at least.

OMG, I want to sex it.
By ZimZum on 10/2/2007 9:54:36 AM , Rating: 3
If it could cook breakfast I'd marry that thing.

RE: OMG, I want to sex it.
By Ringold on 10/2/2007 8:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you can cook eggs on a CRT, but they're no beauty queen and liable to throw your back out when lifting it.

Technology mirrors life too often..

Large base?
By glenn8 on 10/2/2007 10:33:00 AM , Rating: 5
I'm not liking that large base. Seems they are cheating to make it look thinner than it is. Think of a laptop LCD screen... it's pretty thin already just because all the circuitry has moved away from the panel.

By crystal clear on 10/2/2007 10:33:58 AM , Rating: 2

Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) display technology is set to make minor inroads into the television market dur¬ing the next few years, iSuppli Corp. predicts. Now mainly relegated to mobile-phone displays, OLED-TV shipments will rise at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 170.6 percent to reach 1.2 million units in 2012, up from 8,000 in 2007. Sales revenue for OLED-TVs will increase to $691 million in 2012, rising from less than $1 million in 2007, iSuppli forecasts.

The attached figure presents iSuppli’s forecast for global OLED-TV units and market revenue.

OLED screens, used mostly in mobile phones today, have brighter pictures, higher contrast, and better color than seen on today's LCD and plasma screens, analysts report. The reason is the technology emits light, rather than depending on a backlight.

But making OLED screens in sizes of 20 inches or more, which is necessary to enter the mainstream TV market, is expected to take time, iSuppli said. Manufacturers will need to develop the processes necessary to make the screens in large volumes, and to build the equipment needed to build the panels efficiently.

Until manufacturers can drop the per-unit cost of making the TVs, retail prices are expected to be much higher than mature options, such as LCD TVs, which are expected to cost half as much, iSuppli said. As a result, most consumers are expected to choose rival technologies, which will be available in abundance.;j...

RE: Projections
By Oregonian2 on 10/2/2007 3:29:49 PM , Rating: 2
OLED screens, used mostly in mobile phones today, have brighter pictures, higher contrast, and better color than seen on today's LCD and plasma screens, analysts report. The reason is the technology emits light, rather than depending on a backlight.

Plasma screens emit light (emitted by phosphors within each sub-cell of a pixel).

That quote I think is the one I saw yesterday where the author didn't seem to know how plasma's worked. No backlight involved with plasma screens. Don't hire that analyst. :-)

Can't wait for OLED monitors...
By UzairH on 10/2/2007 9:49:52 AM , Rating: 2
IF the response times and color range/brightness are really as good as claimed by Sony, this can be only a great (albeit expensive) alternative and future replacement for LCD monitors. With LCDs you are always worrying about potential ghosting and backlight bleeding, not to mention the colors not being as accurate as the 'old' CRT technology.

OLED monitors for PCs appearing in 2008 would be awesome, though I have personally no information about that.

By shaggeo68 on 10/2/2007 11:21:11 AM , Rating: 2
nuf said

All hail competition.
By Mitch101 on 10/2/2007 11:34:10 AM , Rating: 2
I love that its superior to what LCD can do and personally I love the picture LCD does and here is to hoping it drives the price of LCD even lower so someday I can have a 108" LCD hanging on my wall for $20.00

Now bring on the SED HDTV's!

By crystal clear on 10/2/2007 11:47:26 AM , Rating: 2
The 11-inch XEL-1

Sorry no buyers for this-the inches count !
(besides being high priced)

Make it bigger-20 inches for a starter.

Bad business decision.

By Snuffalufagus on 10/2/2007 12:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
Damn, it's not the 'One LED TV per Child' I was hoping for :). Maybe they'll give them away free with the PS4...

5 Years time
By Combatcolin on 10/2/2007 1:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
Cheap as chips and you can use blu tac to attach a 60" screen to your living room wall.

Almost interested in OLED displays
By jmurbank on 10/2/2007 9:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
The response time will be about two times faster than the fastest LCD screens. At an LED brightest point, they slowly dim when power is remove. Though LED can handle about ten times more voltage than their rated spec, but only for a certain on and off time. Yes, they can handle a surge better than LCD.

OLED displays could be created by bacteria or viruses. Viruses are engineered to create a battery from the given elements. Viruses could be used in the same way for OLED, so the cost of OLED can be decreased significantly.

In my household, TV are left on for more than 8 hours. If they re-calculate for 24 hours per day, that will be a better figure than 8 hours. I need to see a figure such as 100000 hours to get interested.

Too much for not enough
By effess on 10/4/2007 11:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say anyone would have to be really daft to pay that kind of money for such a small screen, regardless of the image quality. Today's LCDs are quite high in image quality and vastly cheaper per unit area. And, what's up with that goofy looking stand?

By Silver2k7 on 10/5/2007 6:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
Its good to finally see an OLED monitor/tv.. but they need to reach a little bigger if it shall sell.. a 24" widescreen for the computer would be just about perfect.. the only problem with it would be the easly adopter price =)

too small
By casket on 10/9/2007 10:43:44 AM , Rating: 2
$1735 for a Standard-Definition tiny-screen tv. No Thanks... I'll pick up an 11-inch used-tv for $50.

Make this 22-inches or bigger, with native 1080p... and somebody will buy it, no matter how much it costs. Some people will pay $6000 if it looks better than their plasma tv... or if this OLED is the best/prettiest display money can buy.

At 540p... this is the worst-quality flat-screen you can buy, at the highest price. Sounds like a winning combination.

LoL 960x540
By Communism on 10/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: LoL 960x540
By smitty3268 on 10/2/2007 2:45:22 PM , Rating: 2
Because if you hook up a HD player to it, you want the tv to convert straight from 1080p -> 540p, rather than having the player go from 1080p -> 720p, and then the tv going from 720p -> 540p.

Honestly, for an 11 inch screen 540p isn't too bad although 720p would have been a lot better.

RE: LoL 960x540
By Communism on 10/4/2007 9:41:13 AM , Rating: 2
thing is, why not do 480p (not all that different from 540p)?

the reason they chose 540p is purely to sport that they can do 1080p input.

If this was used on a game console (why not?), it would be much better to have it be 480p/720p instead of requiring 1080p to downscale perfectly

RE: LoL 960x540
By kmmatney on 10/4/2007 1:01:42 PM , Rating: 1
FYI: 11" @ 960 x 540 equates to a 0.253 pixel size, or roughly the same as a 20" widescreen @ 1680 x 1050.

"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki