Sony Intros 55-Inch Crystal LED Display Using 6 Million LEDs

[tpb]

Even if each tri-LED pixel is 1 cent(not likely), the LED's alone for the screen will cost 21,000 dollars.
Contrast numbers on LCD and Plasma TV's are totally misleading.
They don't include ambient light in the calculation.
If you are in a room that is pitch black, with black walls, ceilings and floors so no external light can illuminate the screen, including reflected light from the LCD screen itself, the contrast numbers are correct.
In the real world your room has light from lamps and windows and your actual contrast ration is probably less than 100. This is obvious because otherwise your screen would have to be absolutely black in your lighted room.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]tpb[/nom]...In the real world your room has light from lamps and windows and your actual contrast ration is probably less than 100...[/citation]
Yes. I agree. As you said, you do get only a 'ration' of the total contrast ratio.

 

[nikorr]

[citation][nom]IndignantSkeptic[/nom]so how does this compare to OLED?[/citation]
Cheaper : )

 

[willard]

[citation][nom]Branden[/nom]willard, the whole point of LED backlighting is to get deep blacks by turning backlighting off, as opposed to CCFL backlighting that is always on.[/citation]
A bit of a clarification. The shenanigans I was referring to is using a black value from the display being totally off (black screen entirely, backlight off). This is very different from turning backlighting off for better blacks, which is called local dimming as many people have already pointed out. If Sony were using local dimming and comparing the numbers they get there, I'd have no problem. It's simply not what they've been doing.

Comparing against the black value of a screen that's totally off is in no way a useful metric. Who cares how dark the screen is when it's not showing anything? And again, I'm sure this is a great screen, and the technology behind it is certainly sound, but I've learned not to trust Sony on these easily inflatable numbers. They aren't the only offenders, but they certainly seem to be the worst, or at least in the ranks of the worst.

Will this get amazing contrast ratios? Almost certainly, but I'll eat my hat if the contrast ratio is really "more than measurable limit values." That just sounds like another way of saying infinite contrast ratio to me.

 

[freggo]

While this sounds promising I have a feeling this will not be affordable for quite some time. So we can expect to see it only when visiting some rich friends. Well, there is something to be said to socialize outside of facebook then 🙂

 

[TeraMedia]

Anyone else questioning why the SONY rep said, "work conscientiously"? From a quick Wikipedia check, they define conscientiousness as follows:

Conscientiousness is the trait of being painstaking and careful, or the quality of acting according to the dictates of one's conscience.

Part of the definition seems to be to work hard, diligently and deliberately with careful thought. But the other part involves conscience, and indirectly morals. So I wonder whether the employed manuf. process for this device is just abominable on the environment.

That said, I welcome the development of this technology. It seems as though it would have similar benefits to OLED technology, without the shortened lifespan issues (particularly for blue pixels). PQ would blow the best plasmas out of the water, but with lower power, heat, weight, depth and toxic chemicals than even an LCD - hopefully. If they can do it using something akin to a printing process (or perhaps something more like a very large SOI IC process using a glass substrate and deposition technologies), then device size could indeed scale very nicely. They probably have a minimum-achievable dot pitch around 0.024" (~40 pixels per inch) given their chosen prototype size and resolution, which isn't good for close-up viewing. But a 4k2k 110" screen made of these would be incredible - the brightness, contrast and response times would make it like looking through a window.

 

[Marco925]

What? nobody wants to know how much?

 

[wiyosaya]

[citation][nom]TeraMedia[/nom]...
That said, I welcome the development of this technology. It seems as though it would have similar benefits to OLED technology, without the shortened lifespan issues (particularly for blue pixels).
...[/citation]
The lifetime of LG's OLED technology is 100,000 hours.

 

[alxianthelast]

[citation][nom]soo-nah-mee[/nom]This is what I thought current "LED" TVs were when they first came out. I was disappointed to find out that they were just referring to the backlighting.It sounds incredibly expensive to manufacture, but it must look amazing.[/citation]

It actually sounds much cheaper to manufacture and possibly even to repair dead LED elements than working with an LCD panel. What's more is that 8K might not even be a limit if the entire industry gets behind this production method (but would suck for those heavily invested in OLED and LCD).

Heck Sony could even consider much larger screens because they won't be trapped by lowering their pixels per inch. they'd truly be within the bounds of practicality to start marketing real home cinema screens (versus projectors).

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]OLED lifetime is up to 100,000 hours. That is slightly over 11.4 years running 24 hours a day.I agree. Printing OLED will almost certainly be significantly cheaper than this.All of LG and Samsung's 55" OLED TVs were on display at CES along with this set, and according to Gizmodo, the Samsung set was the number one device at the show.[/citation]
one of the colors in all LEDs starts to degrade after five years, I am off they fix that problem or not, but when OLED come out in full swing they'll be cheap enough that even replaceing them every five years wasn't much of a hassle.

 

[TeraMedia]

@wiyosaya: That's interesting - LG appears to be using all white LEDs with static color filters applied on top of them, rather than using separate R, G, and B LEDs. It will be interesting to see how that compares in PQ to OLED and Sony's new LED TVs.

I don't know enough about how white LEDs work to know whether their output across the visible spectrum would be stable over time, or not. I have to assume that a white LED is made up of several different LEDs of different colors, which if they are using blue OLEDs for the blue portion means that they are still susceptible to PQ degradation. The article you linked to had some (I'm guessing) Korean, which I can't read, so I can't say one way or another.

 

[TeraMedia]

Just read up on white LEDs. The common ones either use RGB (which means the "B" will degrade over time), or use phosphors and blue LEDs, which means that the phosphor material can degrade over time (as with a plasma display), and the blue LED will also get dimmer over time. Non-organic blue LEDs don't have much lifespan info, but it seems as if 50k hours is a possible number. But organic blue LEDs are still constrained to limited lifespan. In this case, though, all of the colors would dim together so you wouldn't get a color shift. But I doubt this LG technology can achieve the same PQ as an OLED or LED-based display. But at any rate, thanks for getting me to go learn something new.

 

[imabe]

really??... This is all they could come up with for an LED TV??...

 

[bavman]

Sounds like a terrible idea especially when you factor in the chance of a couple burning out times 6 million