Sony XEL-1 OLED TV unboxed

Sony's XEL-1 OLED TV -- with its 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio and a ridiculous 3mm thin enclosure -- has been unboxed over at TV Snob. Next to all of its accessories, the XEL-1 looks rather less appealing when compared to the clean press shots. In particular, we're left a little confused as to what the deal is with that ugly external power brick: isn't that what the big box underneath the screen was for?

[touristique @ Dec 1st 2007 9:39AM]

I saw this in action in the Sony building in Ginza last week. It's truely something special. I can't wait to see what happens when this technology gets into handheld, seatbacks, big tvs, and laptops. The picture was INSANE.

[Homeboy @ Dec 1st 2007 9:27AM]

I don't like that the base is almost as big as a PS2 slim.

[Jay @ Dec 1st 2007 9:33AM]

Sony are crap.....don't know what we want......proprietary formats.....just copying Apple/Nintendo/Samsung/Nokia*.....too expensive for most consumers.....I don't like the colour.....er, cardboard used for box is too thick.....um.....is this made by five year old kids in India?.....remote is too big.....er.....power lead isn't long enough.....too late to market.....manual doesn't have colour drawings.....

Thought I'd say it before every other Sony-hating, whining ***** did.

* delete as applicable

[Brent @ Dec 1st 2007 9:53AM]

I was just about to call you out as a Sony hater but then I read your entire post. Well played, sir.

Additionally, I wouldn't mind one of these at about 50 inches.

[Josh @ Dec 1st 2007 9:53AM]

"Too late to market". I thought they were the first to bring the OLED TV's to market?

Yep, I consider you applicable to delete.

[Jettic @ Dec 1st 2007 10:00AM]

You fool (JOSH) he was being sarcastic, he's trying to mirror what a Sony hater would say in this scenario

[DelSource @ Dec 1st 2007 10:01AM]

Josh,

Stand up. Walk to bookcase. Pull out dictionary. Walk back to chair. Sit down. Open.

Look up "sarcasm".

There you go.........

[Wwhat @ Dec 1st 2007 2:41PM]

Good sarcasm, only spoiled by it being largely true :/
;)

[Jon @ Dec 1st 2007 5:58PM]

Massive sarcasm failure. Learn it before attempting it.

[DelSource @ Dec 2nd 2007 6:09PM]

Yeah Jon, I mean, we all know that Sony's boxes are too thick, their manuals too dull etc etc, so how on earth can those comments be ironic....

Moron. Don't tell others to learn something you don't know yourself.

[Josh @ Dec 1st 2007 9:56AM]

Oops sorry missed your point there, to quick on the draw.

[Augustos Morales @ Dec 1st 2007 11:30AM]

@JOSH you freakin tool ... and FTR SONY SUCKS ASS!!!! TANDY FROM RADIOSHACK RULES!

[Phil Perman @ Dec 1st 2007 10:11AM]

The imagine of the screen showing a solar eclipse is rather interesting, as you can clearly see where the edges of the image the screen is showing are. Makes you think, if the media you're showing doesn't have pure blacks, whats the point of these insanely high contrast ratios? You're never going to be able to reach them in real world situations.

[Blackster @ Dec 1st 2007 10:17AM]

"In particular, we're left a little confused as to what the deal is with that ugly external power brick: isn't that what the big box underneath the screen was for?"

hm, tv-tuner module maybe? ;) it has to be somewhere, doesn't it?

[Mile @ Dec 1st 2007 10:41AM]

Doesn't have to be in this day and age where most require a cable box anyway.

[Ben @ Dec 1st 2007 10:44AM]

Mile: Actually the FCC mandates that all new televisions have digital over the air tuners, so yes, there has to be a tv tuner in this tv.

[Ben Hobbs @ Dec 1st 2007 11:02AM]

So the American Federal Communications Corporation are insisting that these for sale in Japan only TV's have American OTA TV Tuners inside them? How exactly would that work?

[Mile @ Dec 1st 2007 11:25AM]

Ben:

I thought the mandate by the FCC to have a digital tuner was only for those TVs that have a regular analog tuner. Is that wrong? If so, how does the FCC make the distinction between a TV and a monitor?

TIA.

[JTM @ Dec 1st 2007 2:00PM]

AFAIK, the FCC rule only applies to TV's with screens 13" and bigger. I would guess a tv is defined as a screen with some type of tuner.

[Wwhat @ Dec 1st 2007 2:44PM]

They can put tuners in usb sticks now, a tuner still doesn't explain the size of the base.

[EagleX @ Dec 1st 2007 11:40AM]

oh my god, its the xbox 360 power brick!

[Wwhat @ Dec 1st 2007 2:46PM]

haha, subtle :)

[zunq @ Dec 1st 2007 10:55AM]

Here is blog comparing it to a WEGA LCD: http://so-mo.net/
Look how small it is next to that Vaio TX, you cannot understate the size of it.

[Scooter @ Dec 1st 2007 8:05PM]

how about comparing it to a laptop screen: most are not much thicker, though the contrast does not compare

[js @ Dec 1st 2007 11:00AM]

Meh, my 30" Cinema Display displays better black levels.

[nate @ Dec 1st 2007 11:20AM]

...because you're seen this thing in person already?

[Jesse S @ Dec 1st 2007 12:28PM]

Your 30" Cinemascreen is exactly the same as Dell's 30". Congratulations on being an idiot, non-researching fanboy and overpaying for electronics!

[andyo @ Dec 1st 2007 2:07PM]

When it's turned off? LCDs can't even compete with plasma for black levels (when they're on, just in case). The thing about high-end LCD monitors is not black levels at all, but more emphasis is put in color reproduction, wide gamut and consistency. That's why IPS panels are used, which have even crappier black levels than PVA panels.

[Phil Perman @ Dec 1st 2007 2:18PM]

@ Jesse S

Hate to be pedantic (actually thats a lie, I love it) but the screens aren't the same. The Dell 3007WFP-HC uses a more recent version of the panel from LG-Philips (LM300WQ3 as opposed to LM300W01 for anyone who's interested) which has better response times, contrast and wider colour gamut.

Apple have a nasty habit of being slow to update their technologies and their monitors really are overpriced. £1200 for a Cinema HD when I can get a 3007 for less than £860? No thanks.

[Will H. @ Dec 1st 2007 11:06AM]

I just like it because the remote for it is three times thicker then the TV itself, and the remote's only 10 mil thick lol. jees.

[ryan @ Dec 1st 2007 11:20AM]

If you wall mount it you won't have any of that base there.. Can't put power supply, tuner or anything in a part that comes off...

[paragraph @ Dec 1st 2007 11:30AM]

afik it's not VESA mountable.

i don't know a whole lot about OLED, but it probably requires a controller board, and there does need to be a tuner, and some other bits and widgets, thats whats in the box. the power cord would have been nice to put in there though, i'll keep my hopes up for the XEL-2 to make those improvements.

[paragraph @ Dec 1st 2007 11:43AM]

edit:
yeah, if you look at pictues of it, it's got dual tuners, ethernet, what looks to be USB and eSATA (could be HDMI, the pictures i fuzzy, and my eyes are not what they used to be).

Definitly not VESA mountable, unless the stand folds behind the screen and it's VESA from there.

[Sony guy @ Dec 1st 2007 4:40PM]

FYI... it is mini HDMI. Same as the prototypes we displayed at CES

[3rdsun @ Dec 1st 2007 11:34AM]

The manual is thicker than the screen

[ErikLindemann @ Dec 5th 2007 1:53AM]

That brick is very disappointing.
I had high-hopes for this OLED TV stuff, now I'm kinda "meh".

[L @ Dec 1st 2007 11:39AM]

Don't care much about the TV, but image a Vaio X505 successor using this screen (well, ideally a higher-res and slightly larger version) + an SSD drive.

A superslim (X505:

[vishus @ Dec 2nd 2007 2:23AM]

Actually the power brick for the 360 is closer to the size of that displays base.

[ryan @ Dec 1st 2007 11:42AM]

That is weird.. I haven't seen a picture of the back but from the side pic you can see some of the connections. I wonder if there's cabling in that bracket or if there's a cable that isn't connected in the pics. What would really make sense would be a cable that goes from the box to the screen that can be purchased in 5', 10', 20', etc so it could be wall mounted and cables run in the wall..

[CaliforniaKid @ Dec 1st 2007 11:53AM]

OLED can't get here fast enough for me. As your President would say, "Bring it on!"

[Palmtree3000 @ Dec 1st 2007 2:22PM]

Guess what, if you're a "California Kid" he's your president as well. Sorry.

[Wwhat @ Dec 1st 2007 2:48PM]

I'm assuming he doesn't refer to bush, he would not say 'bring it on', just doesn't fit him.

[Kikkoman @ Dec 1st 2007 12:17PM]

1million to 1 contrast ratio...wow thats really nice, but hd tvs now are super sweet now, so i don't know if they'll make that much of a diff. but then again i haven't seen one yet...maybe engadget will give this away...heheh..j/k...that will be in about 5 years from now :)

[Wwhat @ Dec 1st 2007 2:58PM]

Deeper colors too, and better angles and response time?

[BigTeebo @ Dec 1st 2007 12:25PM]

How come we can shrink the screen down to almost paper-thin, but we can't make power supplies smaller than a cinder block? That will be the tech innovation that will change the world.

[Wwhat @ Dec 1st 2007 2:52PM]

Well there have been advances, look how light and small cellphone chargers are, and those still have a lot of air in the casing.
I wonder how much power this screen actually needs, they use OLED in portable devices so you'd think they are low power, but there are a lot of pixels of course.

[Frank @ Dec 1st 2007 12:38PM]

Wellll.... since in OLED TECH the pixel is its own lightsource, that 1,000,000 to 1 contrast ratio is kinda fake (or marketing speek). Its basically the ratio of a turned off lightsource to its top brightness.

WHAT I would like to see is the ratio for the very darkest black that it can display BEFORE turning off the pixel, to me that would be the true ratio.

[Wwhat @ Dec 1st 2007 2:57PM]

Why? it can turn off the pixel while working, that's the whole advantage, and the a reason why it has good blacklevels, so the ratio is true.
That's also a reason why they try to use LED backlighting in LCD's that can selectively be turned off in areas.
And why do you have issues with a new and better technology coming around?
The tricky thing with OLED is still the lifetime of the display. And seemingly the power it needs?

[Frank @ Dec 1st 2007 5:41PM]

I have no problems with new technology (I am a POST supervisor at pretty big facility, I LOVE new TECH ;-) )

The issue is that then the actual ratio theoretically speaking is 1 to infinite, since a turned off pixel is essentially ZERO. I would rather be interested in knowing whats the best black that it can display without turning off the pixel. This in turn will let us know the accuracy of those almost black colors.

IF it goes from .1 (a number for comparison purposes only, from 1(white) thru 0(black) lets suggest) to 0.0 by turning OFF the pixel, then that means there is no control over that range of color.
in case of a 10 bit display (2^10=1024 luminance steps) you would be loosing control or calibration capabilities over the lower 100 luma levels (I dont know the threshold where it would stops emiting light, when/if we know then we can figure this out better.)

Even if it went from .01 directly to 0.0 you would still loose 10 steps. Visually this could mean that a slow fade from black you could feel a visual "pop" when the image starts to fade in.

peace.

P.S. Sorry for the bad English, its my third language)

[Mark @ Dec 1st 2007 6:02PM]

Frank gtfo

OLED do have the best contrast ratio. Stop acting like you know what you're talking about. Every site that has seen this in person says it looks like a photograph. OLED has the advantage of true blacks and whites, so if something is letterheaded it doesn't waste power and doesn't take away from the main screen by lighting the black pixels.