backtop


Print 42 comment(s) - last by abhaxus.. on Nov 5 at 2:13 AM

OLED HDTVs 40-inches and larger to be available in 2012

Many smaller electronic devices like high-end smartphones and PMPs are already coming with OLED screens. These screens consume less power than LCD counterparts making for longer run times. Another benefit is that an OLED panel tends to offer better colors than a comparable LCD.

LG has announced at the FPD International 2009 show in Yokohama City, Japan that it will be launching a new 15-inch OLED TV on the market by the end of 2009. The set reportedly will have a resolution of 1366 x 768 and a peak luminance of 450cd/m2. The panel will use a bottom emission type and is constructed of low-temperature polycrystal Si-TFTs crystallized by a high-temp process.

LG has plans beyond 15-inch OLED screens with 20-inch and larger panels coming in 2010, 30-inch and larger coming in 2011, and 40-inch and over panels in 2012. LG OLED marketing and sales VP Won Kim said, "Forty-inch and larger OLED panels will be fairly expensive in 2012, but they will be available in the market."

Consumers will have to wait until 2016 to see the price of OLED panels drop below the price of LCD panels. The reason is that a stable supply of large OLED panels at a low cost is unavailable today. Big challenges for OLED panels today include driver elements, organic EL materials, and the sealing process.

Kim said, "We will be able to use a low-temperature polycrystal silicon with the sixth-generation size glass substrate." He continued, "However, for 40-inch and larger panels, we have to use the eighth-generation size glass substrate. Therefore, we have to develop equipment that can deal with an SPC process at a temperature of more than 700°C."

According to LG, its OLED panels will use florescent materials until 2011 and then move to phosphorescent materials after 2012. When 2016 rolls around OLED panels will be 20-30% lower in material cost and have an equivalent yield to LCD panels today. In 2012, the OLED panel will have a 50% higher material cost and 30% lower yield than LCD panels.



Comments     Threshold


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

Question
By Spivonious on 10/30/2009 10:19:41 AM , Rating: 3
Can anyone explain why "720p" TVs have a native resolution of 1366x768? Wouldn't you want the 1:1 pixel mapping with 1280x720?




RE: Question
By nvalhalla on 10/30/2009 10:31:43 AM , Rating: 2
1366x768 is more computer friendly, at least it was. 1280x720 is a more supported resolution than it was say 10 years ago.


RE: Question
By 67STANG on 10/30/2009 10:42:53 AM , Rating: 5
RE: Question
By Spivonious on 10/30/2009 1:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for posting that. It cleared it up for me.


RE: Question
By sprockkets on 10/30/2009 2:50:31 PM , Rating: 5
The stupid part of that is why there still is overscan. TVs are now digital, not analog, and as such there is no ambiguous area that may or may not fill the tv screen anymore; you give us 1920x1080p, so why should it not map 1:1 perfectly?

It's the most ****ing annoying thing to watch 1080i on cable and have words at the bottom and sides slightly cut off for no good reason whatsoever.

But I think it has more to do with the tv than the broadcast because 1080i on my TV from the computer is also cut off, and only via nVidia's control panel can I make it not cut off in the screen. Perhaps once tv's are made to not work with analog signals period, overscan will disappear by default and not require a special setting.


RE: Question
By adiposity on 10/30/2009 4:08:18 PM , Rating: 1
There are even worse issues. Some DVDs are designed with the expectation of overscan. The extra information that is displayed if you disable overscan can be unintentionally shown. You can seem boom mics and things like pants on people who were supposed to be naked (Big Fish).

-Dan


RE: Question
By Josh7289 on 10/30/2009 5:01:35 PM , Rating: 3
So, basically the best option is to give the user the ability to control the amount of overscan (from 0% overscan and up).

Of course, no manufacturer does that. =/


RE: Question
By BansheeX on 10/30/2009 7:20:49 PM , Rating: 3
Overscan and curved screens are some of the worst parts of the CRT era. I had a tv once with overscan so bad that text windows in some of my SNES RPGs were getting cut off. It was really hard for content developers to account for it as all tvs were different. If you play FFVI in an emulator like bsnes today, you can see that the devs did not draw within 10px of the edge so that no one would have cut off text like they did in FFIV.


RE: Question
By MrPoletski on 11/2/2009 5:50:20 AM , Rating: 2
What about FFV?


RE: Question
By Oregonian2 on 10/30/2009 10:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
Hate to say this, but you know all of those gazillions of CRT analog TV's that were being used with overscan? They haven't been all thown away. They're still around with adapters on them (and in some countries probably still picking up analog broadcast). The CRTs still overscan.

But that said, that's not really the "problem" for many. Broadcast still assumes overscan. The broadcast world has not changed just because of the TV broadcast system -- and non-broadcast TV certainly has had no reason to change. As mentioned in the article linked to, when using a 1080P Plasma like we use (on direcTV no less), when watching SD feeds (they still do have those, not everybody is HD) many will visibly show on the screen digital data on the top of the screen. Data that is the closed captioning for the stream that is assumed non-visible due to overscan. Now, someday either purists like myself who want to keep the 1:1 pixel mapping and not overscan my HDTV will give up, or the systems that have been running for a zillion years with that closed captioning data (and some other things) will change such that it's not there (like on HD channels).

But for the time being, there still are overscanning crt TV's being used, and there are systems designed assuming the overscanning still being sent out to those tv's.

Have patience, the rest of the system will catch up. Eventually.


RE: Question
By dagamer34 on 10/30/2009 11:07:36 AM , Rating: 2
Besides, the only time you'll really notice that your screen isn't mapping pixels 1:1 is when using your PC because lines that are 1 pixel thick get blurred and text isn't anywhere as sharp.

Also, on a Samsung, to turn off overscan, look for the "Just Scan" picture option.


RE: Question
By SpaceJumper on 10/30/2009 1:21:36 PM , Rating: 2
I think the reason behind the 15" 1366X768 is so they can sell it to the laptop manufacturers.


RE: Question
By abhaxus on 10/30/2009 6:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
I believe it has something to do with the RAM used for addressing each pixel. I read once that 1366x768 fills a 1 MB RAM buffer completely, giving the panel the opportunity to resolve about 5% more detail on a 1080p/i signal vs a 1280x720 panel 'for free' as far as RAM is concerned. No idea where I read that, so I can't cite it, sorry.


RE: Question
By BeastieBoy on 11/1/2009 10:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
The sums add up. Assuming 8 bits (1 byte) per pixel:

1366*768=1049088 pixels
1049088/1024/1024 = 1MB


RE: Question
By gstrickler on 11/2/2009 10:28:30 AM , Rating: 2
Except that 1 MiB if 1048576. 1366 x 768 is 512 more than 1 MiB. Since it's over, it's not free. If you use 1365 x 768, it fits, but 1366 x 768 does not.


RE: Question
By abhaxus on 11/5/2009 2:13:16 AM , Rating: 2
that's probably why most TVs are actually 1360x768 or 1365x768.


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

Related Articles













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