OLED screen depths are measured in millimeters.
Commentary There's a guy over on AVS Forum, Gus738, that we like to mock. OK, maybe not mock, but we always thought his signature tagline -- Waiting for SED -- was amusing in its geeky videophile pretentiousness.
For those who don't know what SED is, it stands for "surface-conduction electron-emitter display," and until a few weeks ago, it was the next big thing in flat-panel TVs. SED enthusiasts are quick to note that it offers all the impressive picture-quality traits of a traditional tube TV, but it's as slim as a plasma. Unfortunately, some next big things don't quite pan out, and it now looks like Mr. Waiting for SED, as we like to call Gus738, is going to be waiting a while longer -- perhaps forever. Alas, Toshiba and Canon became snared in a legal imbroglio over patent disputes with a company called Nano-Proprietary, which put a damper on the commercial development of SED TVs. Toshiba declared that its partner wasn't able to produce SED panels "to the original schedule," while Canon stated the obvious when it observed that, "The prices of flat-panels are declining more rapidly than expected," making it virtually impossible for SED to compete against plasma and LCD.
It was a cruel day for HD aficionados. After a couple of years of teasing us with SED prototypes, we were promised that retail units were tantalising close -- they'd be in stores by year's end, Canon said. LCD and plasma would have a new competitor. And while SED sets would assuredly have been very pricey (rumour had it that a 42-inch model would be in the US$5,000-to-US$8,000 range), those willing to spare no expense for the finest picture quality in a flat-panel display would have had something to throw their money at. Let's not forget that small but vocal group of cynical observers who like to chide today's flat-panel buyers for overpaying for "yesterday's" technology. (These are the same people who like to say holographic discs are on the way, so why bother with Blu-ray or HD DVD).
Sadly, SED wasn't meant to be. So, what do we have to look forward to? What acronym will carry the mantle for flat-panel of the future?
The one that everybody likes to talk about is OLED or Organic Light-Emitting Diode. At this year's Consumer Electronics Show in Vegas, Sony had a pack of them on display at its booth, and they were clearly one of most compelling items at a trade show that was decidedly short on wow factor. Not only is an OLED display incredibly thin (3mm to 9mm), it has a superhigh contrast ratio (allegedly, one-million-to-one), it boasts faster response times than LCD or plasma, it looks incredibly sharp with colours that really pop -- and because OLED screens don't require a backlight, they're more energy efficient than plasma or LCD.
The big problem is that it's currently very hard to make OLED TVs in large sizes; for instance, the largest OLED display Sony had on hand at CES was 27 inches. Also, manufacturers are still experimenting with the display's organic materials to increase the lifespan to the point where OLED panels' lifespan would be competitive to that of plasma's. Lastly, OLED also has its own set of patent issues surrounding it -- Kodak holds a number of patents -- which means manufacturers such as Sony and Samsung will be required to pay a licensing fee for every OLED TV they produce.
After the SED debacle, it's easy to get cynical about the prospects of OLED unseating plasma or LCD as the flat-panel champ any time soon. However, I think that ultimately, while SED had plenty of fanboys like Gus738, its basic problem -- and why it was never going to make it -- was that it didn't have a real advantage over LCD or plasma. By that I mean its picture quality wasn't that much better. The fact of the matter is that, when you looked at an SED prototype next to a plasma or LCD, you didn't immediately declare it the winner -- you actually had to look and think about it. As I said, it looked really good, but at the same time, plasmas and LCD panels have been improving, and in the end, the difference just wasn't that significant. And ultimately, I think, that's the reason Canon and Toshiba abandoned SED.
OLED, on the other hand, holds one key advantage: the panels are much thinner than LCD or plasma. And in a world where flat-panel TVs are looking increasingly alike, with subtle picture-quality difference, companies will be focusing more and more on the design of their TVs.
To a certain degree, Sharp executives said exactly that at a recent press luncheon I attended in New York. With 1080p gradually becoming more of a standard feature on HDTVs (flat-panel and rear-projection sets), it becomes harder and harder to set TVs apart from a features standpoint (you might call it features saturation). For instance, Sharp -- and other manufacturers -- are touting 120Hz refresh rates in their new LCDs. The faster refresh rate is supposed to help eliminate motion blur, one of the knocks against LCD. But once LCD manufacturers get beyond the motion-blur issue and continue to improve black levels, the feature improvements will become very incremental, and there will be an increased focus on design.
Sharp execs said they were keeping an eye on OLED. They're not terribly worried yet, particularly because of OLED's current size constraints. But if Sony is able to put out an OLED model this year as it's now promising (it's only an 11-inch display, but to get anything out on the market would be an achievement -- even if it's ridiculously expensive), their concern might rise a touch.
The long and short of it is, if you're waiting for something better than LCD or plasma to come along, chances are you're going to have to wait a long time. OLED appears to have a lot of promise, but I don't expect to see an affordable 42-inch model for another five to six years. It's possible that smaller OLED displays (20 inches or less) will become options for kitchens, bedrooms, and bathrooms in somewhere closer to three years, but like SED, the technology might never pan out -- or make sense economically.
That said, true diehards like Gus738 seem intent on holding out and sticking with their current sets. As he said in a recent post, "Well, all in all, I hope OLED makes it [...] cuz I want a better TV then the current pos LCD/PDPs.... So far my CRT tube is making it...." I would humbly suggest, however, that he change his tagline from Waiting to SED to Waiting for OLED. Just a thought.
What do you think OLED's chances are of unseating LCD and plasma as the flat-panel champ? To get your two cents in, add your comments below!
Like this article? Click below to send it to your mobile for free!
Nadine
13/06/2007 04:41 PM
I think that unless the prices are reasonable and the sizes match those of common LCD/Plasma screens shortly after its introduction, the OLED won't take off too well. Let's face it, the majority of consumers are ignorant to quality, and have the mentality of 'Big + cheap = good'. OLEDs will of course keep videophiles and other technology-wise people content, but unless it gains the support of the general population, it will sink quickly, rather than swim as it should.
Report offensive content
Michael
13/06/2007 06:05 PM
What's the deal with these laser tvs coming out at the end of the year? i thought they were meant to blow both plasma and LCD out of the water because of the larger colour range and cheaper prices. They are thicker though.
Report offensive content
AlanInOz
14/06/2007 12:47 PM
I think OLED screens are a great idea, esp. since LCD & Plasma have limitations & often are not as good as current "upmarket CRT's" when it comes to high resolution (1080HD, etc). They would make great computer screens where you wouldn't want more than 20" in size. Also I think the "super-large" screens are over rated, as in a normal sized lounge rooms, these screens are too big & hence look crap (esp. with current low resolution TV & DVD's)- you can't get far enough back from them to get the benifit. I'm also interested in the "Organic" feature, but know nothing about it - does this mean they are environmentally better??? Also the More Technology - the More Choice!!!
Report offensive content
chris
20/06/2007 09:31 PM
I read a news paper article about a year ago relating to Australian developed laser tv . Does this exist ?
Report offensive content
bvl
23/06/2007 05:28 PM
lol i like the line about not buying blu-ray coz holo discs r coming... i might use that next time someones asks why i want a top-of the range tv......waiting for holo-discs
Report offensive content
Kanadian
26/06/2007 04:37 AM
I haven't seen an actual OLED myself yet, but have heard the technology (with it's extremely high contrast ratios) described as more like reading something printed on paper than viewing it on a lit screen. I would think that would be a huge selling feature. If they can be introduced at fairly reasonable prices, I think they would catch on in a big way. With the rapid growth of 'green' awareness these days, I think this article ignored the importance of the OLED's efficiency as well. With a normal LCD, power has to be continuously applied to each pixel to keep the picture 'alive', as well as to the fluorescent backlight. With OLED, power is only required to CHANGE the image. The backlighting is also inherent to each pixel, using LED technology which is much more efficient than even fluorescent backlighting.
Report offensive content
Pissed off
26/06/2007 04:58 AM
Stupid. I just bought my TV, 32inch Sony LCD 1080i at the start of the year. And then at the time, 1080p only just started really to become feasible at around $5-$8000 a set. Now already they are talking replacements. For F$%s sake, I know technology likes to move quickly, but we are talking big money to essentially, watch TV commercials and the odd movie. I am buying a new LCD as the one for our main room, and Ill probably be getting the 1080p Sony 40inch. Now what, does that become crap in 6 months?? Too far, seriously. What happened to the trinitron being "it" for 5 years then.. maybe... trying something else.
Report offensive content
Jamesh
01/07/2007 01:29 AM
I was excited when I first read about SED but now that SED is Dead I'm quite happy to stay with my LCD TVs. LCD technology is improving all the time with genuine blacks rather than dark greys and the elimination of the blurring of speed action by the newer quality models. As for OLED I think I'll be dead before it can match the size of Plasma or LCD panels, even if it ever makes the market, and then there will always be the high price problem for the new technology which most people won't be prepared to pay unless the benefits are enormous - which I seriously doubt. I believe that even Plasma will be replaced by LCD except, perhaps, in the commercial arena.
Report offensive content
OLEDROX
10/07/2007 03:30 AM
OLED is coming, Samsung have developed a 40" prototype and it leaves plasma and lcd for dead. I own 2 plasmas and 2 lcds, once OLED comes out I will own 4 OLED displays.
Report offensive content
SIMMO
10/09/2007 11:45 AM
I sell Plasma's and LCD's at a retail level and like I say to my customers "if you're waiting for the next generation you may as well measure up for your coffin". Get a life buy whatever you can afford and buy it now, after all you can always sell it when something new does finally come along. Isn't that what we do with cars? I get sick to death of people getting paranoid about a few grand when the cars are 40 grand.Geta life you folks. Especially GUS738
Report offensive content
pizzmire2005
20/09/2007 02:17 PM
I am amused by david carnoys comments re SED, how did he come to make a statement that SED is dead? if he bothed to do any research at all he would have discovered that CANON have lodged an appeal against the original texas cowboy judge's ruling, you do not bother doing that if the product is DEAD! as to the new 120hz frame rates for LCD, you will notice in all the company's claims that this only REDUCES motion blur it does not eliminate the problem, next time you see a SONY blu-ray demo on their bravia LCD sets, notice that there is never any high speed action shown, except by accident with the colored balls being ejected at great velocity from a shute down a hill in San Francisco, if you look at the side on shot, you will notice the elongated ball structure of each ball, thats equivalent to four ball diameters, even their latest model 100hz motion flow sets cannot overcome this refresh rate problem, SED does not suffer from this, the balls will maintain their spheroid shape at all times, thats only one of the reasons CANON is proceeding with SED, another reason is contrast, and the degrees of black level, remember while all this court action has been taking place SED developement has continued unabated with some big breakthroughs in reduced cost of manufacture, as well as further improvements to performance, just because you have not heard any thing since the appeal was launched does not mean SED IS dead
Report offensive content