We've been waiting for what
seems like ages for the next iteration of the
XEL-1 to dash in and
swoop us off of our feet, but frankly, we're growing anxious. As the world waits for a commercial-ready OLED TV that's larger than a standard sheet of paper, industry insiders down at the IFA briefings in Malta this past week believe that Sony could be gearing up to make all sorts of
hopes and dreams come true this September. Jens Heithecker, executive director of Messe Berlin, which organizes the IFA trade fair, noted that "IFA is a trade show which is focused more on market-ready technologies," hinting that anything we see in just a few short months will be prepared for release into the wild. We're also told that more "ultra-widescreen" 21:9 sets -- like Philips'
masterpiece -- could be on display, not to mention scores of
internet-ready HDTVs and a Samsung set with refresh rates of 400Hz. Needless to say, IFA's shaping up to be quite a show for the television sector, so you may want to think twice (or thrice, if necessary) about snagging a new panel on August 31st.
[Via
OLED-Info]
posted Apr 19th 2009 8:21PM
swoop? huh?
more like WHOOOOSH
What many people often overlook about OLED is the fact that it resembles CRT in its mode of operation i.e. multiplexing a single dot or line of extremely quickly switched pixels to refresh the display. Since OLED doesn't slowly dissolve like LCD, this requires just like the ancient CRT, a snappy refresh rate. This brings us back to good old flickering. Before you point out Samsung's 400Hz, keep in mind the distannce this refresh rate has to cover, for very big displays this frequency can equal to a 50Hz on a 14" CRT or even less.
And here is the completely missed point - your graphic card, or more specifically the maximum output refresh rate. In the days of yore this was referred to as RAMDAC speed, don't think that since we converted to Digital Video Interface we don't need to care about that. The limit of the pixel transfer rate is still there. You may or may not notice that current top of the line graphics cards top out at 1920x1200 with the pitiful 60Hz which while enough for LCD is 'eyestrainingly' bad for an OLED...
can't wait to hook this up with some suckass monster cables!
Why would you desecrate a TV of that caliber with those POS cables?
Desecrate? Monster is probably having their attorney get ready to serve you as I type this.
their not pos compared to other cables just way overpriced
*they're
Blue Jeans Cable is of higher quality than Monster but a fraction of the cost.
I have an arm I don't need any more, it'll prob cost that to get one of these babies/
What I really need is an $200 HDMI cable that 'really' transmits the exact ones and naughts that a freakin lump of steal could achieve, 1's are 1's, 0's are 0's.
I quote:
"Monster Speed Rated HDMI Cables offer the widest selection of performance" what fuckin performance, its fuckin ones and zeroes!!!!
"at the widest range of prices" yes I kid you not some of their prices are so 'wide' they defy belief. I implore the Engadget community, after all, is knowledgeable to get on this and do all they can to end it. Its just wrong!
"24k gold contacts for maximum signal transfer" its either on the screen..or it's not save over the air digital txs.
creme de la creme "ultra-high density quad-layer shielding" are you fucking serious??
I expect a full and coherent show of support for this post by fellow Engadgeteers.
catch words make money, I guess
BUT I NEEDz the nitrogen-infused, dielectric goodness!! Plus I intend to run my tv in a salt water pool of pulsating EMF transmitters. That gold plating and shielding with really come in handy.
I'm not a fan of Monster, nor do I use their cables, so please don't kill me. Even though 1's are 1's and 0's are 0's, transmission failure does occur. Many (not all), cheap cables experience drop outs due to poorly manufactured ends and connectors. I have mostly experienced these problems with the audio side of things in the form of pops and crackles. When I switched from the budget cables to mid-priced ones, the problems went away.
Again, I'm not advocating Monster (I do believe that they are over priced), all cables are not equal.
I worked for BB and CC for several years. We used Monster on 90% of our demo stations, because we wanted to be able to show that we believed enough in them to sell them. I never, not once, had a single cable that caused problems, even with multiple reconnects. You don't have to spend Monster money to get quality cables, but if you buy cheap cables, you could have problems.
Feel free to wake me when they got 80" and have pictures as good as a Kuro.
Sure thing.
Now go back to sleep .
They have pictures as good as a Kuro, just on a smaller scale. Do Kuros even go to 80"?
Now you will go to sleep or I will put you to sleep.
You're in my world now grandma.
@ Jake B
+1 happy gilmore reference
"We're also told that more "ultra-widescreen" 21:9 sets -- like Philips' masterpiece -- could be on display"
I just hope not. The wider the screen, the more space wasted in the majority of the cases. It gets stupidier and stupidier.
Now you can enjoy black bars on both sides of the screen! One for broadcast TV, the other for widescreen Blurays!
These ultra-widescreen TVs are for movie enthusiasts. Although people think of widescreen as 16:9 (1.77:1) thats only for HDTV
The common sizes for hollywood movies (and widescreen DVD transfers) in the United States are 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. These 21:9 "ultra-widescreens" displays are at about 2.33:1, which is nearly perfect for wide-shot movies, and 1.85:1 and 16:9HDTV still look good.
I want a ~40" 21:9 OLED display!
I am a movie enthusiast, and it certainly isn't for me. My 53" 4:3 CRT RPTV can do about 46" in 21:9, about 48" in 16:9 and of course 4:3 in gorgeus full-screen. Why should I have a TV for watching movies only? That's just plain stupid.
2.35:1 anamorphic projection FTW!
400Hz? Really? I mostly blame Sony for encouraging this kind of behaviour, but what is up with increasing refresh rates? Our eyes max out at about 70Hz, so realistically we're not gonna appreciate anything more than double that.
maybe when you have slow moving pictures, but most gamers can perceive that kind of refresh rate when they get used to fast moving scenery.
I don't know about 400, but the upgrade to 120hz had to do with the "3:2 pulldown" of movies when you want to display a 24fps movie on a television made for 30fps. If the TV is only 60hz (aka frames per second) you can't evenly divide 24 frames into 60 for displaying that second of video. With 120hz television, it can simply display each frame from the 24fps video for a period of 5 screen refreshes as 120/24 = 5.
This gives you smoother video. Also, when it comes to de-interlacing, the faster the screen updates the better the image as well.
The refresh rate is fine. You're thinking of the weird frame blending modes.
400Hz would increase the motion resolution of an LCD. Currently, most 120Hz LCDs are 400-600 lines. While, most plasmas are 900, with the newest Panasonics being the full 1080 lines.
Just avoid the "TrueMotion" and "CineMotion" crap.
loosely_coupled: Yeah, that's where 120Hz makes sense... nice and divisible; 60Hz doesn't work into 400 anyway though. You make a good point with the interlacing though, guess I just didn't even consider these sets might use that.
"Our sets have the name 'Sony' on them so it's known that people will enjoy paying more for them."
"Sony will do for OLED what we've done for gaming and DVDs; and people will enjoy paying more for them."
"We know people enjoy paying for quality; look at Apple."