Toshiba and Panasonic double OLED lifespan -- exceeds LCDs
By Thomas Ricker 
posted Jan 25th 2008 7:37AM
posted Jan 25th 2008 7:37AM
[Via techradar]
Read [Warning: subscription req'd]
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Nay sir, I will not rank you.
LOL! Random comment but that worked quomen lol.
I really was wondering when OLEDs would become a suitable replacement to LCDs. They are so vibrant and save so much more power.
I'm guessing this won't drop the over the top price any.
I'll take two.
30,000 hrs too small ? that's almost 4 hrs !
just bring the price down & i'll take one... err... many !
I'll assume you didn't mean 4 hour, but rather years - cause 4 hours is too small for me.
oh ! sorry , my bad. yes its 4 YEARS !
give us EDIT engadget , E-D-I-T !!!
For a casual TV watcher, its definitely not too small ... but I think the average early adopter for units like these are businesses using them as display units; which get left on all day long. These guys will see the biggest benefit in crisp picture and power savings but will definitely rack up hours faster.
"An OLED TV like Sony's XEL-1 is rated at 30,000 hours - or eight hours a day for ten years"
You call this short?
. . People who call 30.000 hours a short lifespan probably don't do much more than measure eletronic devices' lifespan, I think. I don't even have 4 hours to watch TV every day, and it gets me to a twenty years of vibrant colors and incredible contrast. Anyway, technology enhancement is always good.
Well I suppose it is if you take into account the horrific price of OLED sets. The same could be said of plasma sets too in their day of course.
Technically speaking, an LCD has an unlimited life span if you can keep replacing the back light. That's what limits their life more than anything.
Sure, but most manufactures of LCD TV's make it so that you either can't replace the back light or make it so that if you did it would either be more cost effective to buy a new one or possibly cheaper to do so.
I thought LCD developed more and more dead pixels after a few years.
Doing some quick googling leads me to believe it doesn't really happen that much. And I'd expect and OLED display to do about the same anyway. I mean, how many cars with LED break lights out there have dead emitters?
Never saw a rearlight with a dead led, but I did see busses with dead leds in their designation displays on the front and side, but those are white lights (I assume they are LED) and white is more experimental.
I love OLED's. However, I want to actually be able to buy one that's larger than 11" and a little smaller than 80"! When are they coming out? I know the 11" is out and it looks spectacular (saw it in person at the Sony store), but when are the larger models coming out?
I think i remember a release map of one of those companies predicting a 2010 mass-production... i think we still have to wait a bit longer :(
Oh, here it is, Samsung's Roadmap for OLED:
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l43/Zar0n/vB.jpg
This isn't a major technological advancement. Somebody at Toshiba and Panasonic simply forgot to put a check in the "Lifespan Doubler" box before.
I'm all for OLED but have little use for it until they make 55" and 85" screens at prices below the KURO plasmas.
neat
HD-DVD support only
Screw LED backlit LCDs, Dell should use these in their 2409wfp-hc! >:O
I am more interested in the portable applications of OLEDs esp. laptops, phones, and MP3 players.
You would see a huge jump in battery life with this sort of thing. Put that together with a solid state HDD and you have a lovely little laptop.
Sony really should use their OLED screen in an ultra-portable it'll probably cost $3000 easy but it would be awesome the macbook air wouldn't stand a chance but then I guess with all that except for the fact it would actually seem affordable.
I just wonder what the hell they mean by "lifetime"
In some LCD's, I think the "lifetime" refers to how long it takes before the CCFL back light is at 50% brightness. That's a big difference, I say. But then, at 50% brightness, your TV still works -- put it in a dark room, and it'll still look good. And, if manufacturers were kind, replacing a CCFL back light should cost around $15, if that. Of course, most manufacturers are jerks and do what they can to remove the DIY repair option...
If you had LED back lighting, the lifetime would be a bit longer...but LED's sometimes fry themselves. If manufacturers were jerks, the LED backlight would be one big huge unit that cost $100's of dollars. If they were decent, it'd be easy to replace one burned out $2 LED. Again, most manufacturers aren't decent in this sense...
With OLED, what does "lifetime" mean? Pixels are half as bright? Pixels are dead completely? 20% of the pixels are dead? All the blue sub-pixels are at 20% brightness so the colors look uniformly crappy?
I love the idea of OLED, but I also like *specifics* about what these developments mean in the real world. Dealing with a dim back-light on an LCD is one thing...but an OLED panel isn't going to have a cheap replaceable component to bring the TV back to life, so what exactly can I expect at the end of my OLED's "life" in 10 years?
This dude probably has 200 votes by now split right down the middle.