OLED Computer Monitors?

Samsung's method was more expensive and technically more impressive, but it didn't provide appreciable gains in calibrated image quality over LG's W-OLED. With patience and time, I was able to calibrate my LG panel using CalMan to my satisfaction. Colors seem to match up nicely (albeit with more pop and contrast) to my calibrated IPS & VA monitors.

The LG OLED panels do typically have some bad pixels, but W-OLED does nothing to "mask" a swath of dead pixels. From my own experience and what I have read on avsforums, the dead/hot pixels are usually not easily noticeable and don't impact the enjoyment of the experience. Although a few people did take them back because of the dead pixels due to the premium price.

To see the good, the bad, and the ugly of LG's implementation, check out these threads on avsforums
LG 55EC9300 55" OLED Owners ONLY Thread (Part 1)
Official OWNERS thread for 2014 OLED LG 55ec9300 (Part II)

For the original 55" LG OLED
LG 55EA9800 55" OLED Owner's thread

Like any forum owner's thread, you will see a LOT of nitpicking. Many of the people who invested in these TV's are also individuals who owned Pioneer Kuro or other premium plasmas. In the end though, most people agree it is the best display they have ever used.
 
qBHHVwe.jpg


3BUoRxd.jpg
 
The previous claims about wOLED 'masking defects' are completely nonsensical. The reason wOLED has better yields is down the the chemical process for producing the panels.
For RGB OLED, three individual chemcial passes are needed to lay down the organic phosphors. And after the first process, the second and third need to avoid damaging the already deposited organic phosphors. With wOLED, all the phosphor is laid down in a single pass.
Why does this increase yeild? Let's say that each chemical pass has a 10% defect rate (i.e. a 10% chance that the number of subpixels that do not function will be above a certain threshold), and a 10% rate of damaging the existing phosphors.
For wOLED, the defect rate is 10%
for RGB OLED, the defeat rate a 10% for the first pass, 10% + 10% for the second pass, and 10% + 10% for the third pass. A 50% defect rate overall! This is of course cut down by testing between passes and early binning, but that's still a lot of wasted panels!

The downside of wOLED is efficiency. An RGB OLED panel emits nearly all the light it generates. A wOLED panel blocks around 1/2 of the light emitted (assuming the W, R, G, and B subpixels all have equal area) due to the filters.
 
The question is, what price can we expect for the 4K 55" model?

It seems they have no plans to make lower sized OLED TV's then that, so a 55" although too big for desktop could be a interesting thing if the price drops to $3000 or below.
 
EdZ said:
The previous claims about wOLED 'masking defects' are completely nonsensical. The reason wOLED has better yields is down the the chemical process for producing the panels.
For RGB OLED, three individual chemcial passes are needed to lay down the organic phosphors. And after the first process, the second and third need to avoid damaging the already deposited organic phosphors. With wOLED, all the phosphor is laid down in a single pass.
Why does this increase yeild? Let's say that each chemical pass has a 10% defect rate (i.e. a 10% chance that the number of subpixels that do not function will be above a certain threshold), and a 10% rate of damaging the existing phosphors.
For wOLED, the defect rate is 10%
for RGB OLED, the defeat rate a 10% for the first pass, 10% + 10% for the second pass, and 10% + 10% for the third pass. A 50% defect rate overall! This is of course cut down by testing between passes and early binning, but that's still a lot of wasted panels!
Click to expand...
Could have really used this about two days ago. :D

Not that it really would have put an end to the baseless assertions. :rolleyes:
 
=)(= said:
The question is, what price can we expect for the 4K 55" model?

It seems they have no plans to make lower sized OLED TV's then that, so a 55" although too big for desktop could be a interesting thing if the price drops to $3000 or below.
Click to expand...
To each their own. But I'm looking at my 55" plasma right now in my living room and I just can't imagine it as a computer display. Unless I mounted it separately and put my desk about seven feet back. :D

Not sure if you have a TV like that in your home. But if you don't, I would strongly caution you to see a 55" screen in a home environment before doing anything. When you see them in a place like Best Buy, your perspective is skewed by the tall ceilings, making all displays look tiny. Then they look huge when you get them home and have standard ceiling height.
 
another thing to consider when thinking about using TVs as monitors is whether they support independent RGB values for each individual pixel (i.e. 4:4:4). If they don't (i.e. if they only support subsampling of the chroma channels), then while they're fine for HD video content, they won't be ideal for a computing environment.

It may be the case, however, that all modern higher end TVs do support 4:4:4 - no clue.
 
I'm watching a 55-inch HDTV in my living room right now. It is indeed massive. I work from home and had delusions about using it as an external display for my laptop. Set it up with a wireless kb and mouse and everything, and I can indeed work from my couch, several feet back. But as mentioned, it's not ideal. Whether this is due solely to the lack of 4:4:4 chroma or something else I don't know. Anyway, I feel that a 40-inch monitor like the new 4k Philips display is really the absolute maximum one should consider for desktop work
 
Hurin said:
To each their own. But I'm looking at my 55" plasma right now in my living room and I just can't imagine it as a computer display. Unless I mounted it separately and put my desk about seven feet back. :D

Not sure if you have a TV like that in your home. But if you don't, I would strongly caution you to see a 55" screen in a home environment before doing anything. When you see them in a place like Best Buy, your perspective is skewed by the tall ceilings, making all displays look tiny. Then they look huge when you get them home and have standard ceiling height.
Click to expand...

Well, I had a Samsung 48" inch 4K tv on my desk and I could use it, I just had to sit a bit futher away. But I am not sure how much bigger 55" is compared to 48". I can just imagine that it will be really huge.

Is this the closest to a OLED pc monitor that you can buy today? (nvm, forgot abot the expensive trimaster monitors).

ctZJmZu.jpg


http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-XEL1-1...1539362239?pt=Televisions&hash=item23487329bf

But I don't understand this:
Display Resolution 960 x 540 pixels
Supported Resolutions 1080i (HDTV), 1080p (HDTV), 480i (SDTV), 480p (EDTV), 720p (HDTV)
Click to expand...

It has such low res but it supports 1080p? :confused:
 
Last edited:
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
those are just the acceptable video signals (see the wiki), likely meaning that it will accept those signals and downscale if necessary.

and, there are OLED monitors you can buy - the sony trimaster series is an example. They wouldn't fare very well for gaming though, and I believe they're aimed for video studio work, so the resolution is limited to 1080p.
 
Hurin said:
To each their own. But I'm looking at my 55" plasma right now in my living room and I just can't imagine it as a computer display. Unless I mounted it separately and put my desk about seven feet back. :D

Not sure if you have a TV like that in your home. But if you don't, I would strongly caution you to see a 55" screen in a home environment before doing anything. When you see them in a place like Best Buy, your perspective is skewed by the tall ceilings, making all displays look tiny. Then they look huge when you get them home and have standard ceiling height.
Click to expand...

This is very true. I have a setup where having the 55" as an auxiliary display works nicely, but I don't think I would set it up as a primary monitor. My primary use is console games and PC games/media after that.

spacediver said:
another thing to consider when thinking about using TVs as monitors is whether they support independent RGB values for each individual pixel (i.e. 4:4:4). If they don't (i.e. if they only support subsampling of the chroma channels), then while they're fine for HD video content, they won't be ideal for a computing environment.

It may be the case, however, that all modern higher end TVs do support 4:4:4 - no clue.
Click to expand...

Well, so far it doesn't look great. Here is an example from the 4K OLED:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...ec9700-oled-owners-thread-4.html#post30327706

I find that really odd considering that LG was one of the few manufacturers that actually supported 4K 60hz @ 4:4:4
 
Fleat said:
This is very true. I have a setup where having the 55" as an auxiliary display works nicely, but I don't think I would set it up as a primary monitor. My primary use is console games and PC games/media after that.



Well, so far it doesn't look great. Here is an example from the 4K OLED:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...ec9700-oled-owners-thread-4.html#post30327706

I find that really odd considering that LG was one of the few manufacturers that actually supported 4K 60hz @ 4:4:4
Click to expand...

Indeed. In any case, I've read that chipsets that support HDCP 2.2 + 4:4:4 at 4K/60Hz are available now to manufactures. So, this should not be an issue in the 2015 sets, unless they end up using rebadged parts for some models -- that'd probably only affect sets below the high end though.
 
x3sphere said:
Indeed. In any case, I've read that chipsets that support HDCP 2.2 + 4:4:4 at 4K/60Hz are available now to manufactures. So, this should not be an issue in the 2015 sets, unless they end up using rebadged parts for some models -- that'd probably only affect sets below the high end though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was the primary reason for so few 4k 4:4:4/60hz tvs, the chips had 12gbps throughput, not the full 18gbs of the HDMI 2.0 spec. That was a hardware limitation that no longer exists. 3 manufacturers of the chips have full 18gbps going now (Realtek and two others).

Edit: Admins: Thanks for banning that Jeff guy, this thread got out of control for a bit there. It was so bad I started this:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1847672
 
If Samsung can make 10.5" 2560x1600 amoled panels and sell them for less than 300$, what's preventing them from making amoled monitors?
 
Last edited:
Samsung has made OLED TVs.

The typical usage scenario (workload) for a computer monitor is rather different than a TV or tablet or smartphone. This is somewhat of an issue due to certain characteristics of OLED displays.

The manufacturing methods are not easily scalable and interchangeable depending on the display size.
 
Or rather they don't see the market for high end pc monitors for entertainment purposes as viable. That's why they only been making those crappy matte pls panels for office work lately and canceled s750/950d.
 
Pechendko said:
If Samsung can make 10.5" 2560x1600 amoled panels and sell them for less than 300$, what's preventing them from making amoled monitors?
Click to expand...

This is very good question. It seems that scaling up which means bigger pixels is very difficult and results in very low yields. Besides Samsung probably heavily subsidizes
AMOLEDs.
 
Corvette said:
http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-display-aims-reach-oled-lcd-cost-parity-2015

Looks like Samsung thinks OLED and LCD cost will intersect this year.
Click to expand...

Cost parity is a requirement for computer monitors, but the link is referring to LTPS mobile panels. For 15 inches and above you need to use oxide TFT which is used for the OLED TV sets.

Another barrier is achieving a power efficiency that will draw sufficiently little current to avoid burn-in at 100 cd/m2.

I reckon I could run my 15EL9500 at around 90 cd/m2 as a general monitor and get away without burn-in for a thousand hours or two. And that's ancient tech.
 
^^As far as monitors go,

I believe the samsung oled tablet displays use that mobile variant display port connection (forgot its name), so it can be used as monitor if hacked. I guess no one has tried this? The screen is rather small at 10.5"..
 
Last edited:
spacediver said:
1: 60hz framerate (also see this thread)
2: not fully strobed (at least the model reviewed in this thread and the model in the above thread (the blurbuster thread).
3: unclear how much input lag
4: limited to 1080p
Click to expand...

5: Up to a $26,000 price tag for the 25" model

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick with LCD for the forseeable future.
 
seanclayton said:
Organic substances degrades over time...
Click to expand...

Hurin said:
So do backlights? :p
Click to expand...

I think the biggest problems with OLED is:

1. Image retention. I've seen it be a problem especially with the early AMOLED phone displays.

2. Blue subpixel lifetimes (less than 5000h, compared to 3 times that for red and green subpixels). Compare that to 20,000-40,000h for CCFL, 50,000+ for LED and... well...

OLED has a ways to go before it will replace LCD for desktop monitors.
 
Mr. Bluntman said:
5: Up to a $26,000 price tag for the 25" model

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick with LCD for the forseeable future.
Click to expand...

Apples to oranges - big time. Unfortunately, the only OLED monitor is the professional PVM and BVM monitors, which are reference-grade.

Sony's BVM CRT's were also tens of thousands of dollars too. The difference here is that this is professional video equipment for the most demanding applications. There's a $40,000 Dolby Reference LCD monitor too. Like I said - OLED monitors are only offered in the Professional departments at the moment. Maybe one day, we peasants can afford them :D
 
jbltecnicspro said:
Apples to oranges - big time. Unfortunately, the only OLED monitor is the professional PVM and BVM monitors, which are reference-grade.

Sony's BVM CRT's were also tens of thousands of dollars too. The difference here is that this is professional video equipment for the most demanding applications. There's a $40,000 Dolby Reference LCD monitor too. Like I said - OLED monitors are only offered in the Professional departments at the moment. Maybe one day, we peasants can afford them :D
Click to expand...

Here is hoping... I'd love something in 27" with a 100,000:1 contrast ratio to be sitting on my desk for under $800.
 
So I went to Best Buy today.

I went through the TV section and on their demo reels on the normal LCDs it says Best Buy sells Plasma, LCD, LED, and OLED tvs.

So I asked the sales guy if I could see the OLED tv screen.

Sure enough. They had one. Very nice. Pitch Black blacks. Super thin chassis (slimmer than a mobile phone.) It was 55" and $2999 which is pretty reasonable. I'd love to have one as a monitor.

However, it was playing it's own demo reels showing it off. I was trying to gauge the blue OLED to see if that pixel was twice as large as the rest. Their demo reel played no blue! So I still think they are trying to hide the blue problem. It has red roses. A green frog with red eyes, and various other effects that didn't show any true blue.

Nice to see it for sale though and at a somewhat reasonable price. Granted any other 55" inch TV is probably in the $500-600. But $2,999 looks a lot better than $29,999.

Also the OLED pixel configuration seemed to be the same as a TN panel. Meaning it was just pipes ||| that were RGB. So I'm not sure how the view angle is. It was a curved screen so it was harder to judge. I know IPS the pixel configuration is more like <<<.

Anyways. Nice to see it in a store. Let's get it to the monitor.
 
Scoobydo said:
Also the OLED pixel configuration seemed to be the same as a TN panel. Meaning it was just pipes ||| that were RGB. So I'm not sure how the view angle is. It was a curved screen so it was harder to judge. I know IPS the pixel configuration is more like <<<.
Click to expand...

for oleds subpixel geometry should have nothing to do with viewing angles
 
The picture quality of my Samsung Tab S 10.1" is nothing less that superb.
In the meantime, my LCD computer monitors suck.
Life is hard. ;)
 
Scoobydo said:
I was trying to gauge the blue OLED to see if that pixel was twice as large as the rest. Their demo reel played no blue! So I still think they are trying to hide the blue problem. It has red roses. A green frog with red eyes, and various other effects that didn't show any true blue.
Click to expand...

LG OLEDs(which that almost certainly was) do not use colored subpixels, blue or otherwise. They use color filters over white OLEDs. This is probably one of the reasons that they're the only company with a commercially viable large screen OLED production line.
 
Scoobydo said:
So I went to Best Buy today.

I went through the TV section and on their demo reels on the normal LCDs it says Best Buy sells Plasma, LCD, LED, and OLED tvs.

So I asked the sales guy if I could see the OLED tv screen.

Sure enough. They had one. Very nice. Pitch Black blacks. Super thin chassis (slimmer than a mobile phone.) It was 55" and $2999 which is pretty reasonable. I'd love to have one as a monitor.

However, it was playing it's own demo reels showing it off. I was trying to gauge the blue OLED to see if that pixel was twice as large as the rest. Their demo reel played no blue! So I still think they are trying to hide the blue problem. It has red roses. A green frog with red eyes, and various other effects that didn't show any true blue.

Nice to see it for sale though and at a somewhat reasonable price. Granted any other 55" inch TV is probably in the $500-600. But $2,999 looks a lot better than $29,999.

Also the OLED pixel configuration seemed to be the same as a TN panel. Meaning it was just pipes ||| that were RGB. So I'm not sure how the view angle is. It was a curved screen so it was harder to judge. I know IPS the pixel configuration is more like <<<.

Anyways. Nice to see it in a store. Let's get it to the monitor.
Click to expand...

Make and model of the OLED TV you saw?
 
RadXge said:
The picture quality of my Samsung Tab S 10.1" is nothing less that superb.
In the meantime, my LCD computer monitors suck.
Life is hard. ;)
Click to expand...

I was thinking about buying a tab s, but I'm not sure how accurate the display is, I found an article that says it's got 113% srgb coverage. Are these 13% even noticeable? Because it's impossible to tell just by looking at its demo gallery of oversaturated photos in stores.
Other than that it looks great. The contrast is so sweet with those perfect blacks.

And the viewing angles are really wide, with only the brightness dropping at extreme angles, but the image is incredibly consistent.

The other good thing I've noticed is that they all basically look the same, I've checked like 7-8 of them :D (in basic mode/50%brightness) and the calibration seemed identical, no variation to gamma or color temp which I'm sure I'd have noticed. Is this just a great quality control or the OLED displays are easier to calibrate?
 
Isn't the polarizer what causes the whole viewing angle issue on LCDs?

OLED doesn't use one so I don't see why the LEDs would have any viewing angle problem.
 
4ort said:
Isn't the polarizer what causes the whole viewing angle issue on LCDs?

OLED doesn't use one so I don't see why the LEDs would have any viewing angle problem.
Click to expand...

There are many causes of colour shift in LCDs but the primary one is the anisotropic liquid crystal.

OLED displays use a polarizer to absorb UV and enhance contrast. In OLED displays, the light refracts through several different material layers and will be totally internally reflected after a certain angle, reducing efficiency. Because of this, OLED, just like LED, must be designed with a light extraction scheme to maximise efficiency and minimise colour shift.
 
I've read of complaints of black crush on OLEDs which kind of sucks. Anyone with experience able to tell if it's better or worse than the black crush you get from looking mid center of a VA panel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top