Have you not bought any devices with LED indacators? With these new even more powerful ones I won't need light bulbs anymore, the indicators alone will make the room blindingly bright...
Have you not bought any devices with LED indacators? With these new even more powerful ones I won't need light bulbs anymore, the indicators alone will make the room blindingly bright...
I think he means that OLEDS, at the moment, are pretty exclusively in displays. Like my new camera.
Sometime around 2001 I bought (and still have) a Kenwood in-dash CD player that has an OLED display. It was rather expensive for the day, and the selling point was about the animated display. You could change it to various animated wallpapers, to display what was playing, or a digital sound graph that moved with the music.
Very cool thing to have and show off back then. Now, it's boring and looks dated.
quote:increase the output of organic LEDs by 57 percent.
When did they start to use organic LEDs in light bulbs?!?
OLED ceiling panels are quite popular in office buildings in Asia. You have probably seen them in a few movies. There are also flexible OLED panels in many Asian convention centers.
It's because it's one of those stupid curved screens. The whole idea with LCD was to reduce size and increase viewing angles, by making it concave you have to be dead on to the damn thing.
Just want an IPS 4K+ resolution "dumb" screen with only Displayport 1.3 in.
It's because it's one of those stupid curved screens.
With OLED, the cost of the curvature is very little, but the display itself is (was?) insanely expensive.
quote: $4339 ... ouch! I don't think I'll be replacing my 55" plasma with an OLED any time soon.
That's actually not *that* bad. The 11" Sony was selling for $2500 or so. Although for $4k+, or perhaps a little more I'd expect a 4K display, though not necessarily 55".
OLED ceiling panels are quite popular in office buildings in Asia. You have probably seen them in a few movies. There are also flexible OLED panels in many Asian convention centers.
I stand partly corrected -- I wasn't aware of those panels, and they are not that expensive either. But they are not light bulbs, so I'm probably correct on that.
It's because it's one of those stupid curved screens.
With OLED, the cost of the curvature is very little, but the display itself is (was?) insanely expensive.
You are forgetting the novelty factor and that it's supposed to be the new big thing in TVs since 3D was a flop and the price on 4k have fallen like a stone.
Regular LCDs are a bit different -- they've been in mass production for a long time so they are mature products now. But not so much with large OLED panels, so it's a bit more than just a novelty factor. While OLED has been around for a long time, on bigger panels they had low yield and consequently very high price that prevented their use in TVs. They also had some other issues about longevity and color fidelity.
It's because it's one of those stupid curved screens. The whole idea with LCD was to reduce size and increase viewing angles, by making it concave you have to be dead on to the damn thing.
I think curved screens do have potential - just not for TV sets.
But for a large computer monitor (over 24"), it makes perfect sense, since a computer monitor is normally only viewed by a single user, usually sitting right in the "sweet spot". Due to the proximity to the display, the far left and right sides of a normal flat display are being viewed at quite an angle. Curving the monitor would give a more consistent viewing angle overall and enhance the viewing experience.
But for TVs, where viewers are often not sitting in the middle facing the TV directly, it doesn't really make sense, I don't think anything is gained in the viewing experience.
Movie theaters have been curving their screens, but consider the sheer size of the screen vs the average viewing distance. Big difference.
That's actually not *that* bad. The 11" Sony was selling for $2500 or so. Although for $4k+, or perhaps a little more I'd expect a 4K display, though not necessarily 55".
True, OLED tech has come down in price considerably, but not enough for the expense to be worth it over plasma, which has a color gamut and viewing angle that are, for all intents and purposes, very close to OLED. Contrast is much improved with OLED but I find the contrast of plasma in a dark room to be satisfactory and better than LCD.
However, in brightly lit environments, such as a sunny living room, OLED is winner, but my living room can be very dark at any time.