What can we say -- it's a near final build of LG's
15-inch OLED TV that's set to go production in Korea before the baby New Year can suckle at the big one-oh. We could say it's beautiful, that even motion looked good pushing genuine blacks on this razor thin panel. But we wouldn't want to rub your noses in the fact that we're at IFA and you're not. Perhaps this will make you feel better: by the time it makes it Stateside in February or March it'll be carrying a price tag right around $2,500. Really, but it's Wireless TV-capable and that's gotta be worth something.
Oh, and LG tells us that its 32- and 42-inch OLED panels are on schedule and due to be released sometime in 2010. Yes, 2010
contradicting what we've heard earlier. No word on price but it's going to be tres, tres expensive.
posted Sep 3rd 2009 11:33AM
I nominate the title of this post for best title of the year
Should've called them OGOLD not OLED.
I second that. Did I really have to start my day with angry Hugh Jackman though?
Yeah, but you'd probably be better off not actually punching an LCD display... those liquid crystals are supposed to be pretty poisonous.
What I'd like to know is how something like this compares directly to something like HP's DreamColor monitors (which I dream of being able to afford someday...). For $2000 you get a much bigger display, better-than-Full-HD resolution, and all sorts of control over stuff as esoteric as the color temperature of the actual backlight (made of RGB-triad LEDs)... not to mention a color gamut much higher than your average LCD or CRT. I imagine that there are certain things that OLED could do much better, if implemented properly: faster response time, less input lag, higher framerates, and obviously a higher contrast ratio... but do you actually see those things in practice? How wide is the color gamut? Can green phosphors match the AdobeRGB primary, for instance? Are the blue phosphors deep blue or are they more turquoisey?
And as great as OLED is, let's not forget the color burn-in issue, which probably makes them less suited for computer applications. I'd love to have a display that has a long life, next-to-no input lag, true 120Hz (or 240Hz, if we're greedy) updates, and a wide gamut with an internal 12-bit LUT, not to mention a wide viewing angle and fantastic contrast ratio. When is that actually going to become a reality? Is OLED going to be able to make this possible? Or is it going to be consigned to markets where longevity doesn't matter (on portable devices like the Zune HD) or where the application makes burn-in less of an issue (televisions that don't spend as much time displaying static elements)?
Burn in and OLED... hmm... something makes me think you are thinking of first generation plasmas. 1) OLEDs don't "burn in" 2) newer plasmas don't either 3) OLEDs are better than sliced bread
@Matt
Something about your response gives me the feeling that you might not be completely impartial when it comes to OLED technology "better than sliced bread"...
OLED display elements have finite lifetimes; this is an engineering problem that has not been solved yet. If you display static images on your computer (task bar, maximized web browser, etc) you are going to eventually end up with a situation where some areas of the display have aged at different rates as other areas. Whether you want to call it "burn in" or not, it is certainly not a feature of LCD displays, whose panels pretty much last forever, as far as I know. Certainly, you might encounter issues with the backlight, though (to use the example above) the DreamColor displays let you recalibrate the backlight itself, and as long as you weren't using the monitor at full brightness to begin with (you probably weren't), there's going to be enough headroom to get consistent color for a long, LONG time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-OLED (or new technology in general), and I'd love to be convinced. But I don't think progress is necessarily measured by something improving in some areas and getting worse in others. As a display for a laptop, which has a practical life of only a few years, I'm sold on the potential; there's no way an OLED can be worse than most laptop LCD panels. I have an Acer Aspire Timeline and the display is not "good" by most reasonable standards... but I wasn't expecting it to be for half a grand. How much more am I going to have to pay to get a 13.3" 1366x768 OLED display? I would probably have spent $100 more to get my current laptop with an OLED display, but any more than that and it wouldn't have been worth it.
I'd prefer to spend my money on a quality desktop monitor, but again, it's a hard sell to convince me to spend $2500 on a 15-inch display when I could get a high-end professional LCD for 80% the price with 2.56x the overall area (and 2.2x the pixels, which is being generous; I'm sure that OLED isn't rocking more than a 1366x768 resolution, if that much), when I have to worry about degradation of the blue elements in the bargain.
But then again, I jumped on the LCD bandwagon back in 2001 and traded in a decent CRT for a 19" LCD and then couldn't figure out why I suddenly started sucking at Unreal Tournament. The technology has progressed greatly in eight years, and I expect that OLED displays will just keep on getting better and better and cheaper and cheaper... but how long is it going to take until I get my monitor that goes five years without any hint of image burn-in, along with the other things I mentioned (next-to-no input lag, true 120Hz or 240Hz updates, a wide gamut with an internal 12-bit LUT, a wide viewing angle and fantastic contrast ratio)?
I want a 40 inch OLED-screen for 1500 bucks - now.
Yeah, I know, economies of scale....production isn't quite up there yet, technology is expensive...yeah, yeah, yeah...but 15" seems like such a tease and a regression all at the same time.
[bites on bottom of palm]
and I want a toilet made of gold, but it just isn't in the cards...
Mikesweezer, would you settle for one of these?
http://www.target.com/gp/detail.html/191-5392834-5074932?ASIN=B000H6J7EM&AFID=Froogle&LNM=B000H6J7EM|Trimmer_Money_and_Gold_Toilet_Seat_Cover&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=B000H6J7EM&ref=tgt_adv_XSG10001
Because really, it's a lot more doable than the $40,000 15" OLED, AND it will be more immediately obvious to your peers, whether they are tech-geeks or not, that you are a man of expensive taste.
Ha I want one yesterday for half of that!
Well, I guess we'll have to keep wanting for a while...
Wow - that looks really nice. Can't wait for these to be mass produced and in 50"s - might be time to retire my Pioneer Plasma.
You do what you gotta do dude, but my 60" Kouro's gonna stay where it is for the forseeable future.
Whenever I look at it and I think that I could (barely) afford it only because it went out of production (and because of the idiocy of the shopping masses , of course) I'm almost happy that Pioneer stopped making them.
Will we ever get affordable OLED TVs?
No. Just like we never got affordable LCD or plasma screens.
...
Wait.
@Derek, he probably wasn't alive when Fujitsu and Phillips released their $15k plasmas in '97. ^_^
OLED. The SSD of Displays.
Good comparison! Both have wear issues.
Was kinda thrown off by how thin it was.
That's what she said.
That took a little longer than I thought it would.
That's what she said :)
Lmao the rebuttle was epic.
I think that's a bit too much.
It's so thin... you might even get a paper cut from Wolverine.
Berserker Barrage!
I find these OLED tv designs by Sony and LG laughable. They make the screen so thin, but what does it matter when they still have to have a big chunk of space for the power, electronics, ports, etc. Just work on making a regular looking TV but much thinner instead of going for these designs that only Sony fanboys would fall for.
its not about the thinness, its about PICTURE QUALITY
(and half of the MTBF(5 years) time compared to LCDs and CRTs(10 years) )
It saves on material?
It's because OLED functions this way. Manufacturers put all the parts that a TV needs to work into this "brick" so that OLED displays are razor thin.
WHEN OH WHEN can we get 50" 1080p models for $1K?
Probably about 7 years, is my guess. CANNOT WAIT!
If you want to skip some years then use cryogenics
http://i32.tinypic.com/2hhokg5.jpg
seriously, true black or not, 2,500 for a TV that will only last 5 years isn't worth it in my book. (they estimate OLED lasts about half as long as traditional LCDs and CRTs)
when you cough up the 2 or 3 gs for a nice LCD you know it is an investment that will last you a decade....but why would you do the same for a tiny screen that will burn out after a short period of time.
they need to stop ignoring the fact that OLEDs don't last very long before and address the issue before pushing this technology forward.
What's amazing is that when photographed the image quality comes through as so vibrant and lifelike, so solid. Photos of a high-end lcd or plasma still look vaguely "screeny", for lack of a better word... i guess it's the black levels and color fidelity.
imagine a 40" that thin? It would snap if you tried to pick it up lol
It's still glass right?
At that size it would be carbon fiber.
can't wait to play Duke Nukem on a 900$ 52'' OLED Bravia
LOL
LMAO
That comment has so many sophistications of comedy.
The 32" and 42" will be around $6000 -to- $8000 I bet. Not worth it unless your a millionaire.
Those veins have some girth.
THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID
Two major new Techs coming in 2010, 3D and OLED, if i had the choice to choose either it would be OLED by a long shot.
I will probably look back in this and laugh in 10-15 years time, but 3D seems too gimmiky. OLED on the other hand is a genuine upgrade from previous tech.
inb4 3D OLED tv.
it doesn't look that good on my TN panel
Wolverine just came.
haha, i thought it's HHH on the display.
And it will only cost..... YOUR SOUL!!!!
You know whats great about OLED? EVENTUALLY it won't be unreasable to try and put a 50 inch hanging on my apartment wall. Just need the price to come down a little...Maybe a few k down?
my LCD hdtv just cried alittle inside.
OLED has been percolating in the labs for years now. Their processes, technology, materials have all improved...and will continue to do so. Each of the main display techs today (plasma, lcd, dlp) had their own issues on introduction (aside from cost), and all have improved dramatically.
plasma: image retention
lcd: color fidelity and black levels
dlp: rainbows
It's nice to see the tech finally starting to come to market, but it's still going to be a few years before the tech starts to become affordable. Also, as other players come to market the costs will slowly fall. Kinda like SSD drives today :)
How about adjusting the Aperture next time? I feel like I need glasses looking at those photos.
I expected it to be more $$$!
Nice TV;)))
Damn, what a difficult situation.
OLEDs are probably the best quality TV out there. The problem is the length of your enjoyment is so short, and the price is so high-- why bother? Even worse-- are these made out of some unbreakable materials? Are they packed in so well? These look easily breakable.
I LOVE OLED technology, but who knows how much longer we'll have to wait before they really ARE our paper, or more.
The OLED screen on the Zune HD make us want to ...
I love how the iPhone has become the universal measurement/comparison tool haha
any know wut type of materials the screen is made of? i dont want this thing breaking on me if i buy it for a few Gs, it looks really fragile.
So LG is diving in...what aboutSamsung and Sony as far as full OLED, full size, HD resolution TV's? I emailed them with no response?
OLED panels are made on a polymer substrate... So basically plastic. These may have a glass screen on them but underneath would be plastic. Watchthis vid to see how indestructible oled screens are. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8S8tbQMp2k&feature=youtube_gdata
There is already a 3d oled being shown. It's a 30" by samsung. Link here http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/samsungs-30-inch-3d-amoled-tv-wont-make-you-dizzy-will-leave/
Also, oled screens used to have a short lifetime, but has been vastly increased in only a short amount of time. I believe to lifetimes longer than CRT or LCD.
If you want to know how 'good' OLED screens are, just try these phones that use them!! :)
http://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?sName=&idMaker=0&idAvailability=0&nPriceLow=0&nPriceHigh=0&idCurrency=0&idFormFactor=0&idDualSIM=0&idQwerty=0&HeightMax=0&WidthMax=0&ThicknessMax=0&WeightMax=0&idAntenna=0&idOS=0&idDisplay=0&idDisplayRes=0&fDisplaySize=0&idDisplayTech=2&idTouchscreen=0&idAccelerometer=0&idCamera=0&idCameraFlash=0&idVideoRecorder=0&idExpansionCard=0&idGPS=0&bWLAN=0&bEDGE=0&bGPRS=0&idBluetooth=0&bIR=0&bEmail=0&bWAP=0&bJava=0&idRadio=0&bMMS=0&idRingtones=0&bGames=0&sColor=&StandBy=0&TalkTime=0&sFreeText=
Lifetime and cost?? just wind back about 10 years or so, when LCDs were too expensive and short- lived... has anyone got a 1998 or older LCD that is still going???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_film_transistor_liquid_crystal_display