backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 13 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Apr 22 at 10:04 AM
Toshiba has picked a timeline for the release of its new panels

Toshiba Corp. revealed that it will release an organic EL (electroluminescence) television product in 2009.   Toshiba president and CEO Atsutoshi Nishida made the announcement at a management policy meeting held last week.

Toshiba's plans for the new display include the production of a 30-inch model after announcing the prototype for the 21-inch model on April 9.  Nishida stated that the development for the organic EL display will stay above in size what Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd. has already developed.

"To prepare both the high-end and commodity models, we are currently developing panels made from polymer [organic EL] materials as well as low molecular weight materials," said Nishida.

As for expectations in the display market, Nishida seems to show no signs of worry.  "We don't expect that the organic EL can compete from the beginning on the equal footing with the LCD TV, which is released from many manufacturers across the world, but we believe its superiority will be recognized as production volume rises."

Toshiba has yet to announce when the construction and operation of the organic EL display plant will start or the value of total investments.  Toshiba's PR department has stated that the company is expecting TMD to manufacture the organic EL panels.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Nano-Proprietary's "victory"
By masher2 (blog) on 4/20/2007 1:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
Now that Toshiba's been forced out of SED technology for their next-gen TVs, I guess they've decided to focus on EL alternatives.




RE: Nano-Proprietary's "victory"
By cpeter38 on 4/20/2007 2:01:25 PM , Rating: 2
What a colossal waste of resources! Unfortunately, Nano-Proprietary has choked the goose into submission. I hope that we consumers will have the opportunity to see the golden egg (SED), but, I have severe doubts ...


RE: Nano-Proprietary's "victory"
By greyammit on 4/20/2007 2:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
Out of curiosity, why is SED the "golden egg?" vs. OLED. I am not even sure where organic EL fits in.


RE: Nano-Proprietary's "victory"
By ninjit on 4/20/2007 3:50:49 PM , Rating: 3
EL is the name of the process that converts electricity directly into light.
LEDs are one example use of this, but you don't have to use diodes. Area lighting for example can be whole panels of material that glow.
A lot of those plugin night-lights you see at the supermarket are EL, but not LEDs.


RE: Nano-Proprietary's "victory"
By Playit on 4/20/2007 6:10:38 PM , Rating: 6
I'm not sure the earlier poster answered the question you were trying to ask. I'll give it a shot.

SED (and FED) have certain advantages over current tech. SED allows for use of well-established phosphor tech from CRTs that promise longer lifespan and lower fade. Likewise they can allow for lower power consumption. They beat LCD by being a direct light source (over 50% of all generated light in LCDs is lost while true direct view devices {PDP, OLED, and SED} don't suffer the same losses). They also can have perfect contrast ratios and no directionality problems. They beat PDPs by not requiring the bulky tube and being able to use the same manufacture as LCDs currently employ. They also have advantages over OLEDs. They are more moisture and temperature resistant.

However they also have some problems. They rely on emitter tips which can lose detail and become 'clogged' over time. Small-scale variations can alter pixel brightness. They require high potentials across plates. They are complex (compared to OLEDs) to manufacture. They required a rigid substrate (like LCD and PDP) although unlike LCDs they also required a rigid front substrate, which might preclude use in laptops.

OLED is exciting because it really differentiates over the other three. They can be fully transparent, formed on flexible substrates, manufactured cheaply through ink jet technology, made thinner than any of the other techs, have potentially the greatest power efficiency, be more power dynamic, and scale to any size without significant design changes or restrictions.

So really OLED is more than just a replacement tech. If it fulfills its promise, it could coexist with the other tech and still see significant growth into areas where there is no competition.

Of course, it has major problems too. Organic EL is cheaper to produce and manufacture, than inorganic EL, but is heavily susceptible to moisture and oxygen damage. So much so that traditional sealing techniques are not sufficient to protect the layers. The phosphors are also unique and had to be developed from scratch. Its manufacture is also completely incompatible with the other techs.

So in short… Considering the techs at their best, SED is probably better than PDP or LCD in quality, size, and power usage. However OLED promises to best all three in nearly every category in the longer run. Perhaps SED is just the Silver egg.
-M


RE: Nano-Proprietary's "victory"
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/20/2007 6:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
Thoth tips his hat at you, and smiles.


RE: Nano-Proprietary's "victory"
By Playit on 4/20/2007 7:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
Playit thanks KK for all the news aggregation. Me thinks it beats searching on my own.


By goatfajitas on 4/21/2007 10:30:21 AM , Rating: 2
wow... That is one hell of an informative post.


RE: Nano-Proprietary's "victory"
By masher2 (blog) on 4/21/2007 1:22:53 PM , Rating: 3
The largest disadvantage with OLED at present is one you missed-- lifespan. Unless I missed a recent development, blue OLEDS are still limited to around a 5000-hour lifespan. After that, your OLED display is going to start seeing severe yellowing of the image.

At a guess I'd say that, over the next decade, SED will come to dominate the large-screen display arena, and OLED the small screen. LCD will remain a low cost competitor in both markets, but due to lower IQ, will eventually be squeezed out entirely.


RE: Nano-Proprietary's "victory"
By Playit on 4/22/2007 2:29:01 AM , Rating: 3
PLED (the OLED I was talking about) is not limited to the 5000 hour. (62,000 was recently press released by the leader in PLED tech, CDT). Even small molecule has moved past that limitation. I mentioned above one of the issues of OLED tech was the requirement that all the phosphors had to be developed from scratch. This lead to a developement period of low operational times that the other techs were able to avoid. The bigger limitation to lifespan at this point is the moisture issue I mentioned above.

I think SED might be a little late to the party to really dominate any areas. Also, while it scales better than Plasma, it does not scale as well as LCD. I know the latter statement seems like a contradiction looking at todays sizes, but LCDs and SEDs share the same substrate size limitation, but LCDs don't require a vaccuum to be maintained across the full screen. Plasmas are size limited due to weight and natural limitations of being forced to use a single sealed gas unit instead of the tiled units that are possible with LCD.
-M


By masher2 (blog) on 4/22/2007 10:04:50 AM , Rating: 3
> "LCDs and SEDs share the same substrate size limitation, but LCDs don't require a vaccuum to be maintained across the full screen"

But LCDs are innately more complex and require substantially more manufacturing steps. SED's electron emitters can be inkjet-printed, and Canon's already screen-printing the matrix wiring. SED already beats LCD in contrast, color rendition, viewing angle, and response times...and it has the potential for 300+ dpi resolutions...something LCD will never meet.

Admittedly on paper, OLED's potential looks even better than both. But SED prototypes are already being made at 55" inches...as far as I know, the largest OLED prototype is about 15% of this areal size (20"). Which is why I think OLED may dominate the small-display market, but it won't break into the large-screen market for at least another 20 years.


organic
By Lazarus Dark on 4/21/2007 3:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
I always get confused when this word is used, I want to think "living tissue?", but they mean organic compounds, right?




RE: organic
By Playit on 4/22/2007 2:36:57 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, organic compounds are easier to manufacture and apply to the substrate. A better definition of organic would be a compound that includes Hydrogen and Carbon generally, and especially in this case, in long chains. One benefit is essentially expanding the pallette. By including side chain molecules one can easily manipulate the compound properties, something that is not available with inorganic compounds without drastically changing the overall properties.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki