Samsung claims Breakthrough in LCD Screens

Cole

Cole

Newbie
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
6,430
Reaction score
1
http://theinquirer.net/?article=26871
"KOREAN CHAEBOL Samsung said it will intro a 32-inch LCD panel next week which doesn't need a colour filter.

And this means higher quality LCD panels at a lower cost, the company said.

The LCD panel uses a sequential processing method that can display accurate colour tones and pixels are not spatially arranged throughout, meaning a filter isn't needed.

Samsung said ordinary LCDs need a cold cathode fluorescent backlight and a filter to separate the white light from the backlight into RGB sub pixels.

The breakthrough, Samsung reckons, won't only mean better pictures, but also consumes 82 watts, 60 per cent of the power an average backlight consumes. It will also mean response times of 5ms or faster, Samsung claimed. µ"
5ms!!!!
Lower cost!!
Better Quality!!
Yippy!!! I might actually buy one now....my CRT is really taking up alot of room.
 
im sure they will still be like $200-300 so i dont think ill have the money to get one
 
Sure, that sounds nice... but I'd rather see more resources being pushed into OLED research/implementation. Now those are cool. They're much thinner, cheaper, brighter, have better contrast ratios, have a wider viewing angle, consume less power, you can bend the screens, etc. Oh, and 5ms is crap compared to OLED response times. IIRC, Sony began making some OLED displays last year that had a response time of 0.01ms... no, that's not a typo... that's one hundredth of a millisecond... or ten microseconds. They're like the holy grail of display technology. They have the performance of a CRT (maybe even better in some aspects) while being thinner than an LCD. The only minor downside so far has been that the blue OLEDs have a limited lifetime. Even then, the current best is something like 70,000 hours. That's almost 8 years... and it might even be higher by now. Also, they (Samsung) have already made working prototypes of 40" OLED high definition TVs, but we probably won't see consumer OLED TVs until 2007.
 
If you read the wiki it says that red and green oled's are stuck at 20,000 hours...119 weeks on 24.7, which is a little over 2 years... hardly 8 years. Blue on the other hand has surpassed 100,000 hours.

OLED is probably the most interesting of the emerging screen technologies though and I can't wait till commerically available screens come out.
 
craig said:
If you read the wiki it says that red and green oled's are stuck at 20,000 hours...119 weeks on 24.7, which is a little over 2 years... hardly 8 years. Blue on the other hand has surpassed 100,000 hours.
Click to expand...
Everyone in the industry says blue is the most difficult one to make, in terms of longevity. You're probably just not reading something right:
The biggest technical problem left to overcome has been the limited lifetime of the devices. Red and green OLED elements already had lifetimes of well over 20,000 hours but blue OLED lifetimes had lagged significantly behind. However, in May 2005, Cambridge Display Technology announced a blue OLED with a lifetime of over 100,000 hours.
Click to expand...
They never say or imply, anywhere, that red or green are "stuck" at 20,000. Since blue is the tougher one to manufacture, they push until blue's lifetime reaches an acceptable level... then, they apply the same techniques they used to extend blue's life back to the red and green (making them at least as long lasting as blue... and that's all that matters). They only point out the recent developments in reference to blue's lifetime because it's the only one holding them back... and, thus, the only one that matters. So, with the most volatile one lasting over one hundred thousand hours, the life of the device would be:

100000 / 365 / 24 = 11.4 years

Actually, I was using an old calculation from when the best blue could reach was 70,000 hours. At 100,000 hours it's eleven years instead of eight. Also, even then "lifetime" only refers to the time it takes for the OLED's maximum light output to be cut in half. So, even after eleven years it should still be functioning pretty well. That's more I can say about the CRT I'm using.
 
I'll buy a lcd monitor when they have as good a picture as top end crt's at the same cheap price point ..till then I'll stick with crts
 
LCD's never will. Unless:

A. They develop a meothod of producing one where the crystals can block all the light been fed from behind it via the floursecent tubes (i.e. is able to produce a solid black).

B. They replace the flourescent tubes / diffuse layer with some form of LED for each pixel on the screen, which would probably create all kinds of technical problems.
 
CptStern said:
I'll buy a lcd monitor when they have as good a picture as top end crt's at the same cheap price point ..till then I'll stick with crts
Click to expand...
have you ever tried a flatscreen. Cause I have a 15" benq flatscreen, and frankly thats the last thing I would let go of. I'd rather let go of my mx510 mouse, my 9800 pro, and a lot of other stuff. The thing is I heard the same tings as you about how slow and low quality flatscreens are compared to CRT's. But damn, once you own one. The picture is so incredibly nice, I mean when I return to my old pc with the old monitor, which has a higher res, it feels like going back in the stone age.

It may be that my CRT is just very bad, but if you haven't ever worked with , a LCD I suggest you try to do that for atleast a week and then go back to your old CRT.
 
Grey Fox said:
have you ever tried a flatscreen. Cause I have a 15" benq flatscreen, and frankly thats the last thing I would let go of. I'd rather let go of my mx510 mouse, my 9800 pro, and a lot of other stuff. The thing is I heard the same tings as you about how slow and low quality flatscreens are compared to CRT's. But damn, once you own one. The picture is so incredibly nice, I mean when I return to my old pc with the old monitor, which has a higher res, it feels like going back in the stone age.

It may be that my CRT is just very bad, but if you haven't ever worked with , a LCD I suggest you try to do that for atleast a week and then go back to your old CRT.
Click to expand...

I'm the same, just got a 19" TFT and its great. No ghosting or blurring in movies or games (fast pased ones too like ut2k4 and need for speed underground) and the image quality is excellent. So damn sharp, and goign back to teh older pc with a crt is pretty weird because its so blurry compared with my tft.
 
Grey Fox said:
have you ever tried a flatscreen. Cause I have a 15" benq flatscreen, and frankly thats the last thing I would let go of. I'd rather let go of my mx510 mouse, my 9800 pro, and a lot of other stuff. The thing is I heard the same tings as you about how slow and low quality flatscreens are compared to CRT's. But damn, once you own one. The picture is so incredibly nice, I mean when I return to my old pc with the old monitor, which has a higher res, it feels like going back in the stone age.

It may be that my CRT is just very bad, but if you haven't ever worked with , a LCD I suggest you try to do that for atleast a week and then go back to your old CRT.
Click to expand...


we have lcds from the cheap to the uber-expensive here at work: Hyundai crappy to apple sweetness ..still doesnt compare to the LaCie Electron Blue monitor at 1/4 the price. I need to see the difference cuz I in graphic design
 
Yeah, but I think they're more of 'reusing old technology'.
 
*drools*
But we won't be seeing them as monitors until the end of 2006?! ;(
 
CptStern said:
I'll buy a lcd monitor when they have as good a picture as top end crt's at the same cheap price point ..till then I'll stick with crts
Click to expand...

QFT + E
 
Hopefully these monitors will be available when HL3 comes out:cheers:
 
32" LCD with 5ms response time. mmmmmmmmmmmmm :)
 
I've been watching OLED tech's progress with some excitement. But until those come out, I'm sticking with my sturdy, sharp, gigantic 19" Samsung 997DF CRT.
 
OLED sounds fecking amazing!!

How far do they bend, anyone know?
 
probably something like the curve of a 8-10" radius circle. But I'm sure it differs alot, even for those types of OLED displays.
 
dekstar said:
OLED sounds fecking amazing!!

How far do they bend, anyone know?
Click to expand...
OLED's arn't the same thing as those thin screens. OLED just improves color, black depths, response times (i think) over LCDs.
Thats a flexable screen.
 
Asus said:
OLED's arn't the same thing as those thin screens. OLED just improves color, black depths, response times (i think) over LCDs.
Thats a flexable screen.
Click to expand...
Actually, no, the only things limiting an OLED display from being bent are the way it is produced (inkjet, photolithographic techniques, something similar to current LCD manufacturing, etc) and the materials used. There are two main variations (and a hybrid of the two): small molecule and polymer. The first one requires a vacuum somewhere in the production (I forget the exact details), more expensive techniques, results in lower flexibility, and generally has better lifetimes/efficiency... because it's the more mature of the two.

IMO, the second one is the more interesting of the two. This type of OLED display is also known as a PLED (Polymer Light Emitting Diodes) or LEP (Light-Emitting Polymer). It hasn't quite as matured as far as the traditional OLED manufacturing process, yet... but, since it allows them to basically print the screen directly onto the base, it's very inexpensive and highly flexible. Also, the screens produced by this method can be paper-thin and transparent. It will open up lots of interesting new uses for displays.

Let me grab a quote from Wikipedia:
The fact that OLEDs can be printed onto flexible substrates opens the door to new applications such as roll-up displays or displays embedded in clothing.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top