[citation][nom]burnley14[/nom]I don't care too much about thickness. What I do care about is that this will probably cost about $25k, based on the tiny OLED TV's sold in the past for a fortune.[/citation]
I guess the price will be twice as that.
i am sure that the contrast will be much better....how will it compare with plasma? plasma does not suffer from pix-elation, LED TVs suffer from pix-elation big time....if OLED tvs will have the same issue then you can count me out
[citation][nom]jlats26[/nom]First off, not really concerned how "Thin" they can go, I watch TV's from the FRONT not the SIDE..you? Second, I'll be more interested when they start upgrading the resolution above 1920x1080.[/citation]
1080P is all you need....it's clear enough for me...what they need to do is acutally code the programing to take full advantage of 1080P...most movies and shows are scaled up but they are not full 1080P
I agree about the resolution.. Why is everyone so obsessed with increasing the resolution in TV's, when the content that is available isn't nearly using the highest resolution most of the times.... It's not like you are going to use this panel as a PC monitor anyway...
[citation][nom]Phishy714[/nom]I bought a 55in LED tv back when LED tv's were starting to come on board. Needless to say, I paid around 2k for it, while better ones with WIFI are available now for about $1300.
Hey I got a 40in non-LED LCD for about the same price a few years back.
If I had a huge pile of money just laying around, I'd get one of these for 50K, but as it is I think I'll wait a while.
And you just go see what a big Oled screen looks like and say it's no upgrade...
If your in a smaller room i guess i could see that thickness come into play when the tv with mount sits 10" off the wall with stand and 2-3" thick panel, falling back to around 6" could make those side seats have just a touch of a better viewing angle. I guess thickness has a direct correlation to the panels weight as well which could come into play as well. But this whole thickness is all marketing and bragging rights because once you have your HDMI or Component cables plugged in, those are going to stick out another couple of inches, even the right angle ones arent all that tight to begin with. Basically if the technology allows for thinner panels and if that thin panel means cheaper prices due to requiring less materials i'm all for the thin panel craze, otherwise get lost!
I'm still in the stone ages with my 46" Samsung LCD @ 60hz from 3 years10 months ago but i've got no reason to upgrade yet, i know the newer panels may look better or they're brighter but its not side by side with a new one and i've never herd anyone complain about the quality!
I'm stoked that OLED tech is finally getting somewhere! I'm still rocking my old 4:3 480P CRT TV (yes progressive, not Interlaced, and it makes a world of difference on my PS2! lol), and would love to upgrade, but when comparing LCD TVs to my LCD monitor there is little reason to upgrade the main TV as the computer is in a coffee table and couch configuration which works just fine for us most of the time.[citation][nom]jlats26[/nom]First off, not really concerned how "Thin" they can go, I watch TV's from the FRONT not the SIDE..you? Second, I'll be more interested when they start upgrading the resolution above 1920x1080.[/citation] I am with you! 2K and 4K have already made their debut on the ultra high end, and should start filtering down to the enthusiast end within in the next 2-3 years. Many say that it does not make a difference, but for those of us wanting a home theater setup with a 6' tall projector/screen 1080p simply does not cut it. 2K would be acceptable, and 4K would be preferred for such sizes.
And I completely agree, make it as thick as needed in order to have even and controlled back-lighting, and to house all the electronics behind the screen. We consumers are much more concerned about shrinking the bevel than shrinking the back that we never look at.[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]i am sure that the contrast will be much better....how will it compare with plasma? plasma does not suffer from pix-elation, LED TVs suffer from pix-elation big time....if OLED tvs will have the same issue then you can count me out[/citation] Obviously you know very little about TV tech. Plasma screens have pixels, just like anything else. They just do not have square pixels like LCDs do which generally makes for a more natural looking image, but makes things like text much harder to read and textures (where you would see most of what you are complaining about) much more blurred. They use the more organic shapes of their pixels to hide some of the artifacts that you would otherwise see in an LCD, and in the real world the only difference between a good LCD/LED vs a good Plasma is contrast, black level, and natural motion, not artifacting. The real issue is pixel density, and the space/lines between the pixels. Most modern LCD/LED/OLED panels do not suffer from the 'screen door effect' or pixelation problems, especially once you get away from the entry level models. Also, most pixelation is introduced through compression of the video, or a bad upscaler. Watching demos in a store generally is riddled with issues because they pump everything through a low quality distributer which messes everything up for most of the screens. Until you watch the TV in a room with a dedicated blue ray player, in a dim room after it has been calibrated then there is no way to really see what you are getting. I agree Plasma is the better tech, but not for the reasons you are citing. And lets keep in mind that plasma is unusable in some situations due to burn-in issues, and blowing out the contrast levels for some types of media where an LCD is a little more 'true to life'.
remember when the first 42" plasma hit Circuit City / Futureshops? It was 480i resolution only, and costed 14,000$ It dropped to half price 9 months later. Now they're $399 for a 1080p Sharp (60Hz)
I am happy that OLED is finally hitting the scene, I cannot stand the current state of LCD, well mine anyways, it is bleeding through edges and making my eyes sore. I never had this problem with old tube TV's
[citation][nom]TheHelix[/nom]I agree about the resolution.. Why is everyone so obsessed with increasing the resolution in TV's, when the content that is available isn't nearly using the highest resolution most of the times.... It's not like you are going to use this panel as a PC monitor anyway...[/citation]
DUH! you think Cable companies were flooding their cable lines with 1080i/p content when those technologies first came out? UD is the next step and those initial TV's will cost what those early LCD's cost, the wealthy will be purchasing these, manufacturing volumes will go up these panels will be produced in higher quantities and the processes will evolve, they will then become more standard as prices fall below $4,000, more and more content will be mass produced, Currently i am capable of playing HD channels on 4 of my TV's simultaneously, So the bandwidth is already there and if watching a UDTV broadcast means the other TV's cannot watch 1080p content immediately, so be it. Eventually the technology will catch up etc etc. We saw this with the first HD TVs at 720p/1080i and then 1080p so what makes you think that this same process will not happen again? Over and over again people talk about how they could never imagine needing more of this technology or that technology. I would love to see Blu-Ray discs used to their full potential and utilize multiple layers for 4x resolutions.
And also just like we saw with DVD players, we will be able to "up-convert" the quality of our current 1080p content in the interim, i know its not as good but it does make a difference
[citation][nom]Phishy714[/nom]I bought a 55in LED tv back when LED tv's were starting to come on board. Needless to say, I paid around 2k for it, while better ones with WIFI are available now for about $1300. Since LED TV's are still viewed as modern and the "newest" thing, and probably will be viewed this way for another year or two, I can see this OLED costing about 3-4k and not being worth it lol. At this point, I don't see any reason for anyone to "upgrade" to something like this unless they have an old projection screen, and even then, it will cost too much to upgrade.[/citation]
actually they are SO worth it. i was holding off on a monitor till sed took off, but due to law suits and such, that never happened, because it would cost double for an sed which would feature the best parts of a lcd with the best parts of a crt.
even back than, oled was seen as better than sed, and sed already was able to put and current lcd to shame, and this was years ago. imagine what about 5 years of research and development did to the... hell we may actually have a tv with true 2ms response time, and actual blacks, not a dark shade of gray.
i wish i could trust that contrast ratio though, its sad that every number on a monitor of any kind besides how bit it is, and its aspect ratio are meaningless.
[citation][nom]billybobser[/nom]looking past the marketting talk, add in the electronics to control it, it'll be much thicker.[/citation]
No marketing talk here. The electronics are in the base. The display area is 4 mm thick. More details here and here.
And no, I don't work for LG. I've been following next generation TV tech like this for years.