backtop


Print 29 comment(s) - last by rogard.. on Oct 5 at 8:00 PM

Toshiba says its 30-inch OLED TV will be on the market in 2009

The move from projection and CRT TVs to LCD and plasma TVs saved home theater lovers lots of space in their homes and the thinner sets looked much more attractive as well. The next big change in HDTV sets will come in the form of OLED TVs.

Sony announced yesterday that it would sell the world’s first OLED TV in Japan with a screen size of 11-inches and a price tag of about $1,744 USD. Following Sony’s announcement, Toshiba President and CEO Atsutoshi Nishida announced today that Toshiba was going to have its own 30-inch OLED TV on the market by 2009.

Nishida is quoted by TechOn as saying Toshiba previously projected its OLED TVs to reach the market in “2015 to 2016.” Toshiba is also reportedly getting both high-end and commodity OLED TVs ready for consumers.

Part of the problem that makes OLED technology currently expensive and the lead-time for larger OLED TV screen sizes longer is the immaturity of the method for producing OLED panels. Current OLED panels are difficult to manufacture and degrade over time with a lifespan of only 30,000 hours according to PC World. The average LCD TV has a lifespan of around 50,000 hours.

The benefits of OLED technology in TVs are thinner screens and higher contrast ratios along with faster response times. OLED technology requires no backlighting, which allows for the much thinner cabinet sizes.

Toshiba was strongly backing SED TVs in 2006 with units promised within a year from CES 2006. A few months after CES 2006 was over, Toshiba and Canon pushed SED TVs back to 2007. By CES 2007 SED TVs were all but dead due in part to a lawsuit between Canon and Nano-Proprietary, which forced Toshiba to pull out of the SED development with Canon.

Hopefully, Toshiba will be able to deliver on its promises this time with OLED TVs that actually make it to market.



Comments     Threshold


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

We want SED!!
By nayy on 10/3/2007 8:33:40 AM , Rating: 5
I hate it when legal battles get in the way of technology.




RE: We want SED!!
By acer905 on 10/3/2007 9:28:32 AM , Rating: 4
Agreed. The only real reason i can see that CRT's aren't still widely used is not because of image quality. They happen to have (imo) better image quality than anything else available. The only problem i see is that if ya want a 50" screen, the tube would just be gigantic. Thus to me SED is the most reasonable progression.


RE: We want SED!!
By spamiswhack on 10/3/2007 9:44:42 AM , Rating: 2
SED can't hold a candle to the advantadges OLED has in thinness and portability. I'm pretty sure they can't match the contrast ratio, response time and brightness either. Not to mention that OLED's will eventually get better economies of scale since they are "printable" and that they can also be manufactured on transparent and or flexible substrates.

SED is just a rehash of tube tech, it will probably work and look nice (and may have the advantage of no native resolution), but the market will prefer OLED, just like it prefers LCD over plasma. Especially since SED is way late to the game and is arguably way behind OLED in development and time to market


RE: We want SED!!
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 10/3/2007 9:56:00 AM , Rating: 3
March 12, 2006:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1189&...

quote:
I think OLED has a very strong possibility of disrupting SED and FED in future techs. Its cheaper, more mature and solves all of the problems of all displays right now (is flexible, faster response time, less power) except variable resolution. However, the variable resolution is becoming less and less of an issue because the resolution and DPI is increasing so fast.


I guess I stand by what I wrote 18 months ago!

Fantastic post here here too:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6912&...


RE: We want SED!!
By loomis2 on 10/3/2007 12:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
Whatever happened to laser tv's? Mitsubishi was supposed to have one on the market by this holiday season and I haven't heard squat for about a year! They were supposed to be brighter, more colorful and have a higher contrast ratio than lcd's and plasma's and be comparable in price. It sounded like a no-brainer to me.


RE: We want SED!!
By ninjit on 10/3/2007 2:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
The laser TVs are still projection type displays, usually combined with a DLP chip.

The difference is that they use 3 color lasers for the light source instead of a bright lamp with a color-wheel.
Some designs use 3 DLP chips instead of one, and optics to combine the final image; reducing flicker and color separation.

There are already a few models available on the market if I remember correctly.

But OLEDs, definitely seem like the future of current display technologies.


RE: We want SED!!
By masher2 (blog) on 10/3/2007 3:54:11 PM , Rating: 2
> "SED can't hold a candle to the advantadges OLED has in thinness and portability..."

True.

> "...I'm pretty sure they can't match the contrast ratio, response time and brightness either..."

False. SED wins on response time, brightness, color gamut, and color rendition accuracy. Though to be honest, the differences are fairly minor.

> "Not to mention that OLED's will eventually get better economies of scale since they are "printable" "

So is SED. That's why Canon is backing the technology, as inkjet-printing SED matrixes segues well with their current expertising in printing.

I stand by my prediction of 18 months ago. OLED is going to eventually take the small-display market by storm, but large displays (40"-100"), are going to be ruled by SED.


RE: We want SED!!
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 10/3/2007 4:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So is SED. That's why Canon is backing the technology, as inkjet-printing SED matrixes segues well with their current expertising in printing.

Unfortunately look how far that got Canon.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7188
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6211


RE: We want SED!!
By bunnyfubbles on 10/3/2007 4:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
SED would have been great if it was available in the last year or two. SED would have been a nice stop gap, but we wanted it then, not now. What we really want is OLED. SED would have offered strong competition to LCD and plasma but all three technologies are easily trumped by OLED.


I'm sick of hearing about OLED
By Wolfpup on 10/3/2007 3:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
It's a LOW END technology, not high end. I'm not interested in a display that burns out in a year or two.

What I'm excited about is LED backlighting for larger LCD displays. That will be awesome (I love the new Macbook Pro's screen).

That life estimate for LCDs isn't for the LCDs, but rather the florescent bulbs (and I think it's short-that sounds more like plasma's lifespan if I'm remembering right). But either way, once they switch to LEDs LCDs...well, continue to be the best display technology, but more so :D




By Hoser McMoose on 10/3/2007 4:25:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not interested in a display that burns out in a year or two.

If OLEDs are supposed to last 30,000 hours, just how much TV do you plan on watching for them to die out in "a year or two"! Even if their real display life is only half of what is estimated you would still need to be watching TV 24/7 for it to burn out in less than two years.


RE: I'm sick of hearing about OLED
By bunnyfubbles on 10/3/2007 4:43:28 PM , Rating: 2
Low end? Are you kidding?

OLED appears to trump everything when it comes to everything except lifespan - contrast, resolution, color gamut, viewing angles, screen size, refresh rate... And if they can start to pump them out cheap enough (another supposed major advantage for OLED) then it won't matter if they become "disposable" because their prices will reflect that - the only reason early sets will cost a small fortune is because its a new technology that is just coming out of development, the same thing has happened with LCDs only the LCD manufacturing process can become only so cheap before it hits a limit where it would never be able to compete with a fully ramped up OLED production process.


By masher2 (blog) on 10/3/2007 5:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
> "OLED appears to trump everything when it comes to everything except lifespan - contrast, resolution, color gamut, viewing angles, screen size, refresh rate... "

No. SED beats OLED in brightness, color gamut, color rendition accuracy, and response time. It ties OLED in viewing angles and contrast ratios.


By Oregonian2 on 10/3/2007 6:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
If you mean the LCD's are the "best" in terms of cost you may be right, but plasma's produce better quality images. Current ones also have quite long lifetimes, they've been substantially improved since the early days.


RE: I'm sick of hearing about OLED
By josebl on 10/3/2007 8:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
It's important to remember that OLED is "Organic Light Emitting Diode". So with, for example, Samsung's variable dimming LED LCD backlight it's essentially a low resolution LED display backlighting the LCD. I'm talking about RGB LED backlighting and not "white" LED backlighting, since "White" LED backlighting doesn't seem very attractive to me. So, very generally, an OLED display just gets rid of the LCD which has the inherant problems of polarizers which affect viewing angle and reduce brightness.

Then again, LED backlights are available now and OLEDs are a few years off (before I'd consider buying one). If Samsung would release the XL24 already! I'd be viewing DailyTech on it instead of...well I'm still using a WUXGA CRT... I like true blacks!


2009
By Shadowmaster625 on 10/3/2007 3:48:15 PM , Rating: 2
A 32 inch LCD tv should be available at Circuit City for $300 by christmas 2009. How would OLEDs compete?




price ?
By Xajel on 10/3/07, Rating: -1
RE: price ?
By The0ne on 10/3/2007 6:10:03 AM , Rating: 3
That's assuming nothing has changed on the cost of manufacturing, which in two years will at least come down a bit.


RE: price ?
By acer905 on 10/3/2007 7:27:57 AM , Rating: 3
Ahh so it will only be 10k by then instead of 12. These things are still horridly overpriced to me. Though i admit once they finally get down in price (lets shoot for 2015) it will be a very interesting technology. Though i think SED development would be better, at least for now. Stupid lawsuits


RE: price ?
By Drexial on 10/3/2007 9:01:24 AM , Rating: 3
there is only one comercial available product right now, and its really not badly priced for a first release. plasmas were over $10,000 when they were released. and after two years i feel like the 30" would be closer to $4-6,000. which sint to say thats a low price for a TV that size. but introduction prices of new technology are dropping faster than ever before. look at how quick HD DVD players came down. and peope are still complaining they are too expensive. they are 1/3 the introduction price in less than two years, thats not bad. look at plasma TV it took forever for those to come down, and they are still crappy.


RE: price ?
By deeznuts on 10/3/2007 12:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
things are still horridly overpriced to me.
They almost always are. Doesn't anyone remember the 15-20k Philips Plasmas back in the day?


people are morons
By GlassHouse69 on 10/3/07, Rating: -1
RE: people are morons
By acer905 on 10/3/2007 9:22:48 AM , Rating: 3
Why would you even think something like that? I mean, i generally have my tv on all the time while cleaning, or doing homework, or talkin to people online. (however thats why i decided to just throw a tv tuner in my pc, its already on all the time). And i don't really see myself as a moron. However i am almost always multitasking when watching tv, so that might explain it.


RE: people are morons
By gramboh on 10/3/2007 11:55:27 AM , Rating: 2
I'm assuming he means that it is not a healthy decision to sit infront of the TV for hours on end wasting your time. I agere with him here, I sit infront of my PC at work for 8-12 hours a day, when I come home I'd rather go for a run, go to the gym, socialize etc. than waste time watching commercials 33% of the time. His point is you should have a balanced healthy lifestyle, not a vegetative one.


RE: people are morons
By rogard on 10/5/2007 8:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
So you're at work now? (smiles)


RE: people are morons
By Procurion on 10/3/2007 9:24:42 AM , Rating: 2
Understood about the life span. What are you or they considering "viewable" quality? What is the rate of decay? Can you watch the tv in a bright, sunlit room at 10,000 hours? 20,000? Ever had an old tv that you just couldn't get bright enough because of it's age? I have three LCD monitors and one LCD tv that are exhibiting severe degradation; and none are more than three years old. Burn-in or retained shadows are also an issue.

The point is, what is the "looks-as-good-as-new" timeframe? After spending a CHUNK of money, how long will it be before I regret having spent top dollar for a picture that sucks even when compared to an old CRT? If I had bought those monitors and tv as CRT's, their picture would not be as degraded as the ones I have. These aren't high-use, and they are all name brand.


RE: people are morons
By psyph3r on 10/3/2007 12:23:43 PM , Rating: 1
The one and only reason I would buy a large panel such as this is to run a second monitor or main monitor for my computers. I can do anything and everything with a pc and with a proper display it can be an entertainment wonderland with video games, movies, music, and internet on a large high resolution screen. this Monitor would only be off when I sleep. not to mention, screens are used in restaurants, bars, and other professional situations. those are on all the time.

Being a crt man myself, I honestly still look at dlp 50" and 65" screens for comparable crt performance. Unless OLeds blow my mind, i look forward to the price drop in older "higher quality" dlp 1080p rear projection displays.


RE: people are morons
By bplewis24 on 10/3/2007 3:34:32 PM , Rating: 1
This is too easy. A person named "Glass House" calling people morons.

:)

Brandon


RE: people are morons
By bunnyfubbles on 10/3/2007 4:56:34 PM , Rating: 1
Even though the generalizing name calling isn't a smart move, you do bring up a good point.

Some TVs are on all the time as they're used in instances such as a sports bar.

Even if they left their TVs on 12 hours a day, 365 days a year, the TV should last said sports bar over 6 years. And the higher end establishments that would buy such nice new technology TVs is probably going to be able to afford to get newer and better TVs after said 6 year lifespan, especially if OLEDs ramp up and gain ground and production becomes cheap as is indictated by the technology behind it.


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

Related Articles
Legal Battles Put SED on the Rocks
January 1, 2007, 2:29 PM
SED TVs Delayed to 2007
March 12, 2006, 1:02 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki