No excuses to not go OLED anymore - Samsung Galaxy S2 shows the way

[neko girl]

I think Steve J mentioned that the move to OLED was not being made because of volume issues, not necessarily quality of display issues.

Is this still the case? Apple does require lots and lots of displays. Lack of supply around product launches has been their black cloud in earnings reports..

 

[Savor]

The only reason why I would get a Samsung phone is because they are one of the rare phone makers who are pushing for OLED. The S-AMOLED was just beautiful on the Focus. Made the HTC WP7 phones look crappy by comparison. When I compare my iP4 vs Zune HD, the sharpness is better on the iPhone, but prefer the colors and real contrast (true black) of OLED. Ironic that Sammy gets bashed but Apple is becoming their #1 customer. If there are shortages, I can see Sammy saving some for themselves.

 

[rovex]

I strongly advocate OLED displays. But, didn't Jobs say IPS is superior and wasnt interested in OLED? And usually when mr jobs says something negative about something It doesn't end up in any apple product (think - blu ray)...

Really though, only fools are arguing that LCD and IPS is better, the black levels on the IPad and iPhone are rubbish and the viewing angles aren't stellar neither (due to the outdated IPS).

OLED Is the future, simple as that. Can you imaging a retina display with SAMOLED technology on an iPhone? That's what I'm talking about.

 

[ThatsMeRight]

Uh, EVERYTHING ELSE.

As if battery life, contrast ratio, pixel response and refresh rate are meaningless and the only thing that matters is cramming more pixels on an already-too-tiny-to-see cellphone screen?

Too tiny? When the iPhone first was released everybody was saying it was way too big for a phone.

But I agree OLED is the technology, and I believe Sony is best at this technology at the moment. Fact is that is much more expensive to produce at this point, and besides that: they are not able yet to produce an OLED display with the pixel density of the iPhone 4. I don't think Apple/Steve Jobs wants to go back to a lower resolution. So I think until visibility in sunlight is better and a higher pixel density for a better price is possible, they keep LCD.

Viewing angles of the iPhone 4 are, for the record, not bad. iPad viewing angle is slightly less (because the screen is further from the glass). Yes, OLED is the future but the technology to keep the same pixel density without increasing the price isn't there yet. And they can't produce as many OLED screens as they can with LCD screens and when Apple want to keep selling >12 million iPhones per quarter than they need to go LCD.

I love the screen of the Samsung Galaxy S, because it has very vivid colours and contrast is high but it's not as sharp and it's less usable in the sun than the iPhone 4 (I got used to the iPhone 4, yep). If Samsung or Apple can combine those two (Vivid colours and contrast + high pixel density and good usebility in the sun) than I believe they have a killer display.

OLED also can display true colours. That's why in the movie industry, directors prefer to use OLED displays because it is so real.

 

[Dbrown]

Like i said before, if you cant provide IQ differences that means there isnt hardly any at all, as the Photo on the previous page proved.

Again, stop commenting about OLED since you apparently know nothing about it. OLED has far superior black levels, contrast, motion resolution, color reproduction and viewing angles. These are all FACTS. Now if you think these differences are "hardly any at all," my suggestion to you is to get your eyes checked.

As for asking for comparison pics... that's just plain stupid. How can you demonstrate OLED superior IQ when you are viewing them on an inferior LCD?

 

[ped]

No? Panel technology generally has nothing to do with 3D.

A 120Hz LCD can display 3D
So can a Plasma TV.

Most news articles I've seen suggest 3D's requirement to produce multiple images instead of a single one produces ghosting and artifacting on LCDs. OLED is much better suited to 3D since it has refresh rates 4 times as fast and pixel response *two orders of magnitude faster* (.02 ms vs 2 ms).

 

[Ace134blue]

Again, stop commenting about OLED since you apparently know nothing about it. OLED has far superior black levels, contrast, motion resolution, color reproduction and viewing angles. These are all FACTS. Now if you think these differences are "hardly any at all," my suggestion to you is to get your eyes checked.

As for asking for comparison pics... that's just plain stupid. How can you demonstrate OLED superior IQ when you are viewing them on an inferior LCD?

Haha. Inferior display. I happen to be using Apple 27in display. the only main difference is blacks. Color reproduction and viewing angles are not *superior* in any way that make high end IPS displays look inferior. They may be slightly better but that is it.

At it looks like, you really have no idea what contrast ratio, as you repeated it by saying black levels. Contrast IS a measurement of black levels. Plasma TVs have the best blacks as of now. OLED is pretty much equal with a plasma. Viewing angles on a S-IPS display are near perfect so that is a non issue. As for the refresh rate, its already non issue because Plasmas do 600Hz, Lots of new LCD TVs that do 120/240/480 hz. Anything Higher wont make a difference

As it stands, OLED is still inferior and is a work in progress. They tend to die in just a few thousand hours, well the organic blue phosphors do anyways. OLEDs are only good for small devices like cell phones. They will not have affordable OLED monitors/HDTVs for quite some time.

 

[InfinitySquared]

Haha. Inferior display. I happen to be using Apple 27in display. the only main difference is blacks. Color reproduction and viewing angles are not *superior* in any way that make high end IPS displays look inferior. They may be slightly better but that is it.

At it looks like, you really have no idea what contrast ratio, as you repeated it by saying black levels. Contrast IS a measurement of black levels. Plasma TVs have the best blacks as of now. OLED is pretty much equal with a plasma. Viewing angles on a S-IPS display are near perfect so that is a non issue. As for the refresh rate, its already non

As it stands, OLED is still inferior and is a work in progress. They tend to die in just a few thousand hours, well the organic blue phosphors do anyways. OLEDs are only good for small devices like cell phones. They will not have affordable OLED monitors/HDTVs for quite some time.

The point is, it's a device incapable of reproducing an OLED image.

That's a fact.

OLED still is a work in progress, you're right. But it's already showing incredible promise. Apple should jump on board.

 

[marksman]

He doesn't have to, he'll just be hanging out at his website which he has shamelessly tried to plug multiple times in his thread. At that site, there's instructions on how to masturbate while looking at images of OLED screens. Not my cup of tea, but who am I to judge?

He does admit he is a power tool though.

 

[Dbrown]

Haha. Inferior display. I happen to be using Apple 27in display. the only main difference is blacks. Color reproduction and viewing angles are not *superior* in any way that make high end IPS displays look inferior. They may be slightly better but that is it.

LCD is inferior. If it was superior then why did Sony choose OLED over LCD for its top of the line reference monitor for video production?

At it looks like, you really have no idea what contrast ratio, as you repeated it by saying black levels. Contrast IS a measurement of black levels. Plasma TVs have the best blacks as of now. OLED is pretty much equal with a plasma. Viewing angles on a S-IPS display are near perfect so that is a non issue. As for the refresh rate, its already non

No, you have no idea what you're talking about (again). Black level is exactly that - the measurement of how black the display can get. Contrast ratio is the difference between brightest color and darkest color. OLED contast ratio is 1,000,000,000:1. The conrast ratio on a cinema display is a pathetic 1000:1. Furthermore plasma contrast ratio isnt close to OLED (that's why OLED images "pop") and nothing can display black like OLED, not even a Kuro. Oh and I never mentioned refresh rate (which OLED is superior btw). I said motion resolution. Do you even know what that is?

As it stands, OLED is still inferior and is a work in progress. They tend to die in just a few thousand hours, well the organic blue phosphors do anyways. OLEDs are only good for small devices like cell phones. They will not have affordable OLED monitors/HDTVs for quite some time.

Just because the technology isnt cost effective for the mass market today doesnt mean it's inferior. OLED technology is inherently superior to plasma and LCD, that is a fact.

 

[marksman]

Imagine a smartphone, with normal dimensions, but using the flexible OLEDs shown above, has a pullout screen like 12 inches wide and as tall as the smartphone. Could be as good as a tablet but in a quarter of the form factor.

Imagine smartphone toilet paper.

 

[ped]

Haha. Inferior display. I happen to be using Apple 27in display. the only main difference is blacks. Color reproduction and viewing angles are not *superior* in any way that make high end IPS displays look inferior. They may be slightly better but that is it.

At it looks like, you really have no idea what contrast ratio, as you repeated it by saying black levels. Contrast IS a measurement of black levels. Plasma TVs have the best blacks as of now. OLED is pretty much equal with a plasma.

Wrong. Plasmas do not have ZERO black like OLEDs do. You can't get better than ZERO BLACK as it is an entire absence of light. Plasmas leak light into neighboring cells, so they cannot do pure black.

Viewing angles on a S-IPS display are near perfect so that is a non issue.

Wrong again. All LCDs skew color and brightness when viewed off-axis. it's a function of how an LCD works. Watch this video of LG's 31-inch OLED, especially as it rotates to 180-degrees off-axis and you will see perfect images and colors all the way to 180 degrees. NO LCD can do that.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/03/lgs-31-inch-oled-spin-slices-its-way-into-our-cold-lcd-hearts/

As for the refresh rate, its already non

As I mentioned it IS an issue with 3D on LCDs, and OLED has more than enough speed to do it.

As it stands, OLED is still inferior and is a work in progress. They tend to die in just a few thousand hours, well the organic blue phosphors do anyways. OLEDs are only good for small devices like cell phones. They will not have affordable OLED monitors/HDTVs for quite some time.

Man you are batting 1000 on getting answers wrong here. If what you say is true then why are Samsung and LG ramping up gen 8 OLED factories to produce 55"and smaller OLED HDTVs right now, with sets due within 12-15 months? Samsung alone has invested nearly US $7 BILLION in the last 12 months on OLED screen factories. I guess they're just clueless about OLED, huh?

http://www.oled-display.net/lg-display-plans-a-8-gen-oled-tv-production-fab-for-55-inch-size-in-2011

http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-invest-48-billion-oleds-2011

http://www.oled-display.net/smd-plans-a-new-production-line-to-produce-65-inch-oled-tvs-in-2012

 

[chrmjenkins]

Despite all of its theoretical technical advantages, OLED still
1) costs significantly more
2) has reduced lifespan, particularly blue subpixels
3) cannot match LCD in pixel density
4) despite theoretical claimed savings, consumes more power than LCDs
5) has reduced color gamut in mobile devices compared to LCD

If any of these are not true, please let me know. They all go to show why it is not the go to display technology yet. It still has to mature.

 

[rovex]

Despite all of its theoretical technical advantages, OLED still
1) costs significantly more
2) has reduced lifespan, particularly blue subpixels
3) cannot match LCD in pixel density
4) despite theoretical claimed savings, consumes more power than LCDs
5) has reduced color gamut in mobile devices compared to LCD

If any of these are not true, please let me know. They all go to show why it is not the go to display technology yet. It still has to mature.

Number 3 is very questionable.

 

[chrmjenkins]

Number 3 is very questionable.

On what grounds? When samsung went from pentile to full RGB subpixels, they increased their flagship display from 4.0 to 4.3" inches. They may just have perceived that as what the market wanted, but many have speculated that the full RGB subpixels necessitated a bigger display.

 

[Dbrown]

Despite all of its theoretical technical advantages, OLED still
1) costs significantly more
2) has reduced lifespan, particularly blue subpixels
3) cannot match LCD in pixel density
4) despite theoretical claimed savings, consumes more power than LCDs
5) has reduced color gamut in mobile devices compared to LCD

If any of these are not true, please let me know. They all go to show why it is not the go to display technology yet. It still has to mature.

1) OLED is newer, so of course it costs more

2) not an unsolvable problem. Today what that means is a display last for 5yrs instead of 10

3) Thats a manufacturing (cost) issue, not a technical one.

4) That depends. If you're watching TV, OLED consumes less.

5) Another manufacturing issue, not a technical one.

No one is saying OLED is mature. What people are saying is OLED technology is superior to LCD. Its just a matter of time before it becomes cost effective enough to replace LCD ~2013

 

[Ace134blue]

No, you have no idea what you're talking about (again). Black level is exactly that - the measurement of how black the display can get. Contrast ratio is the difference between brightest color and darkest color. OLED contast ratio is 1,000,000,000:1. The conrast ratio on a cinema display is a pathetic 1000:1. Furthermore plasma contrast ratio isnt close to OLED (that's why OLED images "pop") and nothing can display black like OLED, not even a Kuro. Oh and I never mentioned refresh rate (which OLED is superior btw). I said motion resolution. Do you even know what that is?

Do you even know the differences between typical and dynamic contrast ratio are? Thought not. A display can have a rating of 800:1 typical and 1,000,000:1 dynamic. Dynamic and typical are different, that's how Display manufacturers get people confused into thinking that since their Contrast ratio is high that the Display is much better quality, and it seems it worked on you.

And yes i know what motion resolution is. Refresh rate affects it if you didn't know that. Most LCDs and plasmas do 1080lines which is fine. As for the refresh rate i didnt finish it, i edited my post. 600Hz in plasmas, most newer TVs are either 120,240(common), and 480Hz which there's basically no need to go any higher.

Just because the technology isnt cost effective for the mass market today doesnt mean it's inferior. OLED technology is inherently superior to plasma and LCD, that is a fact.

If you think an OLED that only lasts a thousand hours is NOT inferior than i dont know what to tell you. So you go ahead and buy a OLED Monitor thats in its testing stage and tell everyone that yours is better, but its lifetime wont last a percentage of the others.

Wrong. Plasmas do not have ZERO black like OLEDs do. You can't get better than ZERO BLACK as it is an entire absence of light. Plasmas leak light into neighboring cells, so they cannot do pure black.

I dont know about you, but my plasma is black as it gets regarding displays. OLED of course wins in Pure black because their is no light in the pixels but the difference is negligible to high end plasmas.

Wrong again. All LCDs skew color and brightness when viewed off-axis. it's a function of how an LCD works. Watch this video of LG's 31-inch OLED, especially as it rotates to 180-degrees off-axis and you will see perfect images and colors all the way to 180 degrees. NO LCD can do that.

All TN based LCDs obviously have bad viewing angles, which IPS fixes that. To get skewed color on an IPS display you have to look at it at a high angle. Nobody watches their TV/Monitor at 180degree angles so that point is moot.

As I mentioned it IS an issue with 3D on LCDs, and OLED has more than enough speed to do it.

Dont think so, i happen to have zero problem watching 3D on my 120Hz LCD monitor or playing games with 3D vision. My friend has a 240Hz HDTV and it to has perfect 3D display ability. It is a bit different with cheaper LCDs tho.

But hey, when they perfect OLED than of course it will be superior to LCD. But that will be at least a year and more investing of billions of dollars. As it stands both display types have their problems, but OLED wins because you only get a few thousand hours of usage in bigger displays before they die.

 

[ped]

If you think an OLED that only lasts a thousand hours is NOT inferior than i dont know what to tell you. So you go ahead and buy a OLED Monitor thats in its testing stage and tell everyone that yours is better, but its lifetime wont last a percentage of the others.

What OLED set do you think lasts 1000 hours? That's ridiculous. Most of the OLED materials are coming from a company called Universal Display, and their red and green materials (Samsung is using their red) last tens or hundreds of thousands of hours. The link below shows the lifetimes:

http://www.universaldisplay.com/default.asp?contentID=604

But hey, when they perfect OLED than of course it will be superior to LCD. But that will be at least a year and more investing of billions of dollars. As it stands both display types have their problems, but OLED wins because you only get a few thousand hours of usage in bigger displays before they die.

You're wrong - see my last post.

 

[chrmjenkins]

1) OLED is newer, so of course it costs more

2) not an unsolvable problem. Today what that means is a display last for 5yrs instead of 10

3) Thats a manufacturing (cost) issue, not a technical one.

4) That depends. If you're watching TV, OLED consumes less.

5) Another manufacturing issue, not a technical one.

No one is saying OLED is mature. What people are saying is OLED technology is superior to LCD. Its just a matter of time before it becomes cost effective enough to replace LCD ~2013

Ok, it seems to me that you're equating the potential to be superior with actually being superior. I do not. I do not want an OLED display in my iphone because its successors should be superior. I want a display in my phone that is actually superior.

 

[Dbrown]

Ok, it seems to me that you're equating the potential to be superior with actually being superior. I do not. I do not want an OLED display in my iphone because its successors should be superior. I want a display in my phone that is actually superior.

Not "should be." Will be, and that's a guarantee. Just like when SSDs first became widely available to consumers they had all sorts of issues compared to HDDs. But those problems - like OLED - all have to do with the technology being new. Who today would prefer an HDD over a SSD?

LCD is a dead end. Sony realized this years ago thats why they never invested significant R&D $$ into LCD and instead invested in OLED.

I bet there is a very good chance next year's iphone will have an OLED in it, and then you and the rest of the people in this thread saying OLED is crap will be like this OLED is soooo magical

 

[ped]

Not "should be." Will be, and that's a guarantee. Just like when SSDs first became widely available to consumers they had all sorts of issues compared to HDDs. But those problems - like OLED - all have to do with the technology being new. Who today would prefer an HDD over a SSD?

LCD is a dead end. Sony realized this years ago thats why they never invested significant R&D $$ into LCD and instead invested in OLED.

I bet there is a very good chance next year's iphone will have an OLED in it, and then you and the rest of the people in this thread saying OLED is crap will be like this OLED is soooo magical

Good analogy - and that fanboy attitude of dissing any tech that Apple isn't currently using and then getting onboard as soon as it gets used is right on. They'll have some excuse for doing so, too, like "well OLED lifetimes/pixel density/whatever have improved to the point that OLED is now awesome" or somesuch thing.

 

[Stein357]

I didn't read any of the 5 pages but part of the problem probably is that Apple would have trouble sourcing all of the OLED displays necessary for the iPhone.

 

[ped]

I didn't read any of the 5 pages but part of the problem probably is that Apple would have trouble sourcing all of the OLED displays necessary for the iPhone.

That was discussed earlier and that issue will no longer be an issue after mid this year, when Samsung's supply of OLED displays goes up ten-fold from 3 million/month to 30 million/month (when their new gen 5.5 OLED factory comes online).

 

[Stein357]

Perhaps the iPhone 5 will move to the technology then?

 

[chrmjenkins]

Not "should be." Will be, and that's a guarantee. Just like when SSDs first became widely available to consumers they had all sorts of issues compared to HDDs. But those problems - like OLED - all have to do with the technology being new. Who today would prefer an HDD over a SSD?

LCD is a dead end. Sony realized this years ago thats why they never invested significant R&D $$ into LCD and instead invested in OLED.

I bet there is a very good chance next year's iphone will have an OLED in it, and then you and the rest of the people in this thread saying OLED is crap will be like this OLED is soooo magical

Yes, should be. What the technology will evolve to is irrelevant when you're stuck on an earlier version of the product that's not going to change. Buy it when it's mature, not because it's going to mature.