icuiti?
- Thread starter Sage
- Start date
Even with a girl wearing them, those goggles still look dorky... Sort of a 21st century Geordi LaForge visor, except it makes seeing people blind rather than the other way around. 
)ANova said:
A couple of thousand hours is way short. 3000 hours would be (12 hours a day for a monitor at work) 250 days. That would mean you would have to replace your monitor every year. The economical life span would be to low. I think there will be other and better alternatives. Like the new CRT technology which uses nano tubes instead of a beam. I think oled screens will be used for stuff like digital camera screens, mobile phone screens, etc. Not for displays that will be on for hours a day.
DudeMiester
Regular
I hear it also has far better brightness and colour representation.
ANova said:
true, but the economical life span will negate this win. The new carbon crt screens should use less energy than the current TFT screens.
check out this article: http://news.com.com/Carbon+TVs+to+e...plasma/2100-1041_3-5512225.html?tag=nefd.lede
hiostu said:
How come you downplay OLED in favour of a technology that is entirely unproven?
OLED has a number of advantages over TFT-LCDs - Lower power draw, three orders of magnitude faster switching time, potentially much better contrast and better colour gamut, avoids angle dependence and has no problems with uneven backlighting.
It only has two major problems as far as I know -
* blue pixel lifetime
* lack of large scale manufacturing and marketing
Of course the lifetime is still a problem for some applications. That's why we don't yet see it OLEDs in computer screens and TVs and large scale manufacturing hasn't been realistic, but it's not an issue for cell phones, digital cameras and similar equipment.
The little gnomes are chipping away at that problem. To some degree it's inherent, but that's not to say that it can't be brought to a point where it's irrelevant by extending the lifetime sufficiently, particularly if you couple it with measures such as self recalibration. Our present displays age too, and once the problem is manageable it ceases to be an obstacle to acceptance.
There are other display technologies in the wings, and you pointed out one of them, but OLED has the advantage that LCD plants can be converted to OLED manufacturing without terrible capital losses.
Unless OLED can get to on the order of several tens of thousands of hours of useful lifetime (it won't DIE immediately after x thousand hours, it'll just get dimmer and dimmer), I would say OLED is basically dead outside niche markets like cell/camera screens that won't stay on for very long.
That it has all these other wonderful properties won't matter if it wears out in one or two years or so. My Eizo trinitron CRT is now about seven years old and it still gives an awesome image quality.
That it has all these other wonderful properties won't matter if it wears out in one or two years or so. My Eizo trinitron CRT is now about seven years old and it still gives an awesome image quality.
Guden Oden said:
While you may find your CRT to your liking still, there is no way in hell it will not have drifted significantly over seven years of use. There is a reason print shops routinely recalibrate their monitors. The problem is there, but most people don't have to care, and the problem is manageable for the people that do have to care.
That's the point that a new contender for the desktop has to reach. And no, OLED is not quite there yet. But it has gotten a lot better over the years, the development is there, just not as fast as the technology optimists would have thought/hoped/liked.
(Incidentally, my home Sony 21" CRT (Sony made the tube in your Eizo) is only four years old, and has most definitely drifted. I would probably have ignored it completely though if I hadn't been so interested in photography, interested enough to check up its performance.)
Edit: And no, I don't say that OLED will be the eventual successor to LCDs and CRTs. I only say that it looks to be the best positioned technology right now, and that it really has some desireable advantages to go with its disadvantage. There are different kinds of OLEDs, try to get a look on one of the better models and compare with similar TFTs. It may be that OLED gets stuck in development sufficiently that it never takes off on the desktop/in the livingroom, but that would only mean that we are stuck with current tech for longer. Not really desireable in my book.
Entropy said:
As I said in an earlier post, it is suitable for mobile and digital camera applications. But as I have heared, from a researcher from a large company, that some of the companies aren't developing oleds for things like TV's. I don't think oled will be an alternative for large TV's. And there are already working carbon tv's with much larger size, which don't have the problems TFT's have. Besides OLED isn't a proven technology, who says that it is even possible to expand the lifetime to several 10-100 thousands of hours.
So imagine the quality of the current CRT's with the depth and even lower power usage than a TFT, no production problems, etc.
I personally think that companies will have to put to much effort in bringing OLED to the PC/TV market to make the screens cost efficient and get the research costs back.
I personally hate the fact that TFT's (and OLED probably as well) have native resolutions. That is the reason why I still don't have a TFT for my home pc (only for my development laptops).
