What Technology is going to come out on top?

[w00t]

BrightSide
SED
OLED all i could find

at this point i am thinking SED.

 

[Munky]

SED looks like the most expensive out of all the options. I personally wish we had some HDR technology in a new type of CRT or similar, because I like that it's not fixed at any native resolution, and there are no discrete "pixels". I'm definitely not a fan of LCD's, so until some better alternative comes along without IQ compromises, I'll stick with my CRT.

 

[wanderica]

SED looks great, but I wonder what the life is. My first instinct is to say that I can see OLED coming out on top, simply because of all the time in development it already has. Might be interesting to see how SED comes out though.

 

[Pabster]

OLED. But not any time soon.

 

[w00t]

Originally posted by: Pabster
OLED. But not any time soon.

why do you think over SED? i think its either SED or OLED.

 

[Pabster]

Mainly because OLED has a long lead on development time compared to the others. And OLED is already used in some devices.

 

[w00t]

i changed my mind OLED

OLED is coming out sooner
OLED uses less power
OLED has perfect black because there is no backlight
OLED is cheaper to produce
OLED weighs less, less mechanisms, less complications, less complexity

^^
mik3y's words

 

[xtknight]

Wow, excellent article on the BrightSide HDR display.

Originally posted by: munky
SED looks like the most expensive out of all the options. I personally wish we had some HDR technology in a new type of CRT or similar, because I like that it's not fixed at any native resolution, and there are no discrete "pixels". I'm definitely not a fan of LCD's, so until some better alternative comes along without IQ compromises, I'll stick with my CRT.

Actually, I somewhere read SEDs could be cheaper than CRTs to manufacture.

Eventually resolution will be worthless as Windows Vista (probably others soon enough) adjusts the size of the output with vectors (everything drawn is vector-based except images). However there will be no lower resolution to set to to get better performance out of your graphics card. So (at least in the future, when these displays get mainstream), for general usage, I wouldn't worry about the resolution issue.

Originally posted by: w00t

Originally posted by: Pabster
OLED. But not any time soon.

why do you think over SED? i think its either SED or OLED.

Because SEDs are able to be manufactured using existing CRT techniques...

Originally posted by: w00t
i changed my mind OLED

OLED is coming out sooner
OLED uses less power
OLED has perfect black because there is no backlight
OLED is cheaper to produce
OLED weighs less, less mechanisms, less complications, less complexity

^^
mik3y's words

Bad lifetime, strict requirements in regards to keeping oxygen out of the display, because the organic materials are extremely sensitive. OLEDs are not very bright, and will take longer to come out in larger sizes and volume. Yes there are OLEDs in small devices already, but FEDs (SEDs) have been around longer than any OLED as well. It'll be a lot harder for them to increase the size of the OLEDs. I think the biggest right now is 2.4" or 4", something along those lines.

 

[James3shin]

OLED to SED

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: xtknight
Wow, excellent article on the BrightSide HDR display.

Originally posted by: munky
SED looks like the most expensive out of all the options. I personally wish we had some HDR technology in a new type of CRT or similar, because I like that it's not fixed at any native resolution, and there are no discrete "pixels". I'm definitely not a fan of LCD's, so until some better alternative comes along without IQ compromises, I'll stick with my CRT.

Actually, I somewhere read SEDs could be cheaper than CRTs to manufacture.

Eventually resolution will be worthless as Windows Vista (probably others soon enough) adjusts the size of the output with vectors (everything drawn is vector-based except images). However there will be no lower resolution to set to to get better performance out of your graphics card. So (at least in the future, when these displays get mainstream), for general usage, I wouldn't worry about the resolution issue.

Originally posted by: w00t

Originally posted by: Pabster
OLED. But not any time soon.

why do you think over SED? i think its either SED or OLED.

Because SEDs are able to be manufactured using existing CRT techniques...

Originally posted by: w00t
i changed my mind OLED

OLED is coming out sooner
OLED uses less power
OLED has perfect black because there is no backlight
OLED is cheaper to produce
OLED weighs less, less mechanisms, less complications, less complexity

^^
mik3y's words

Bad lifetime, strict requirements in regards to keeping oxygen out of the display, because the organic materials are extremely sensitive. OLEDs are not very bright, and will take longer to come out in larger sizes and volume. Yes there are OLEDs in small devices already, but FEDs (SEDs) have been around longer than any OLED as well. It'll be a lot harder for them to increase the size of the OLEDs. I think the biggest right now is 2.4" or 4", something along those lines.

actually, with newer technology, OLED tech has gotten very bright. samsung or sony has already made several oled displays, ranging from the small ones you mentioned to 20" and one company has already come out with a 50" oled tv/display. the incredible thing is that the 50" display is only 1" thick. as for life of the screen, that really isnt a problem anymore aside from the blue color. blue, unfortunately, doesnt last as long as the other colors, though it's i believe they've gotten it to last 80,000+ hours last yr. correct me if i'm wrong, i dont quite remember the numbers exactly. but, oled tech has matured quite a bit and is technically very cheap to manufacture. if you have maximumpc, they had a decently detailed summary on oled just a couple months ago. its quite informative.

 

[Mik3y]

You guys can get some more information on OLED tech here.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Whichever one we can actually buy

 

[Hacp]

Oled, mainly because I beleive that were making a move towards notebooks, and people want more battery life with notebooks. The screen obviously is a huge battery life sucker.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001
Whichever one we can actually buy

Amen, we've been hearing so much about the replacement for LCD yet we don't have much of a choice atm...

I'd say OLED will most likely win out, especially short term if only because its being used already in smaller devices, just not large and dedicated screens.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Mik3y
actually, with newer technology, OLED tech has gotten very bright. samsung or sony has already made several oled displays, ranging from the small ones you mentioned to 20" and one company has already come out with a 50" oled tv/display. the incredible thing is that the 50" display is only 1" thick. as for life of the screen, that really isnt a problem anymore aside from the blue color. blue, unfortunately, doesnt last as long as the other colors, though it's i believe they've gotten it to last 80,000+ hours last yr. correct me if i'm wrong, i dont quite remember the numbers exactly. but, oled tech has matured quite a bit and is technically very cheap to manufacture. if you have maximumpc, they had a decently detailed summary on oled just a couple months ago. its quite informative.

I'm not too worried about the blue light life either. They've gotten it to 100,000 hours. Not bad considering that's the same lifetime as an LCD CCFL backlight. Yup, the Max PC article said 100K+ hours if I remember correctly.

From that BrightSide HDR article:

OLED Organic LEDs have been touted as the successor to LCDs for at least a decade now. They are HDR in that they are emissive, so they can go to very low levels of black.

However they are not very bright, and are best suited to small applications, like mobile phone displays. Once you scale up to large sizes, thermal management becomes a problem, dramatically shortening the lifespan, especially the blue channel. Industry experts estimate 5-10 years before they compete with conventional displays.

Hell, I don't care if my desktop OLED is a bunch of 4" OLEDs clumped together. How is that going to shorten the lifetime? I don't understand. Samsung had a 27" or 32" OLED on display somewhere so it's obviously possible.

 

[CP5670]

I remember reading somewhere that one of these technologies would eventually allow for insane pixel densities and huge resolutions. Was that SED?

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: CP5670
I remember reading somewhere that one of these technologies would eventually allow for insane pixel densities and huge resolutions. Was that SED?

Probably OLED. I heard SEDs were first going to be released in the 37" range. Not what makes me think of high pixel density unfortunately, unless it's like 50x50 trillion pixels. All 37" displays I've seen have just been HD resolution.

 

[jr9k]

I spend too much time in front of a screen, so I prefer OLEDs.
SEDs and CRTs emit radiation.
OLEDs and TFTs emit light.

Both SED and OLED look promising, though.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: jr9k
I spend too much time in front of a screen, so I prefer OLEDs.
SEDs and CRTs emit radiation.
OLEDs and TFTs emit light.

Both SED and OLED look promising, though.

All emit radiation.

SEDs do not have a deflection yoke. They do not release X-rays like CRTs.

 

[imported_Rampage]

I am completely content with todays tech.. it took so long to get LCD here and I'm pretty happy with that tech.

But I will welcome OLED with open arms once it is here too. Anything but CRTs for me.