Yes, that simple. Each pixel can be turned on or off, no? Or isn't that the case?
That is unfortunately not the case with LCD or Plasma, but that is the capability that OLED will bring to televisions when it becomes more affordable in the near future.
No, that's not the case. Each pixel does not have its own light source. Each pixel attempts to block out as much light as it needs to from the main source. You haven't paid very much attention to TVs in the past 10 years have you?
Nope, but you knew that after reading (and before posting)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer
That is unfortunately not the case with LCD or Plasma, but that is the capability that OLED will bring to televisions when it becomes more affordable in the near future.
if this method is going to be included in their upcoming (rumoured) TV set, I think it's bad news rather than good. If they use this technique, then it seems to me that they can't at the same time use the other technique they recently patented whereby a layer of OLED acts as a sort of dynamic backlight/mask which would seem on the surface to be a much more interesting and truly new approach.
It's a thing with tech research an patents. During R&D companies stumble over hundreds and thousends of interesting ideas with are patentable. In the end they will use just some dozens for actual products. Just saying, but I guess it's nothing new to you.
Sounds great but do you really think Apple would do this? I mean their Apple TV isn;t even 1080. If anything they're usually behind in everyone else and charge more. ODN;t get me wrong I love Apple and would love for something like this. But I just don't see it, literally...sorry bad pun...
Another good question would be: why would the content providers produce content in that format for a limited subset of sets
Whether this adds anything to the viewing pleasure is another story.
As I suspect you're aware, most if not all of the "technologies" used in LCDs to make up for their shortcomings end up introducing all new problems. "Intelligently" dimming parts of the screen can result in odd shifts in brightness mid-scene, dark scenes being dimmed to the point of being unwatchable, haloing effects, and from what I remember far worse viewing angles. All of the sake of trying to make LCDs reach black levels they can't actually achieve. This is much like the motion interpolation they introduced a few years ago to try and compensate for LCDs poor motion handling; that "intelligent" feature resulted in a lot of artifacting and tearing as the tv tried to make up frames in-between real frames. Not to mention the side-effect of making every movie look like a cheap daytime soap opera.
As Apple has waited this long to get into the TV business, if they're really going to do it I don't know why they wouldn't just wait another year or two for OLED to become affordable. LCD is a crap technology for television.
I see the charm, and this is exciting in that in offers a glympse of Apple's continuing tech innovations. But I still think the key to "cracking" TV is in Steve's comments regarding the integrated system of content providers and set top boxes and TV units is accurate: it isn't the tech that is hard - it is the business model. IOW: content content content. AppleTV remains a "hobby" because without user controled content (read: a la carte channels or programming) there isn't anything new for apple to offer beyond it.
Once they get a license deal in place, like they did for music on iTunes, this will be "cracked." To get that, they need to show studios (like the music labels) that they have a platform that can Kill It. Like iPods, and perhaps iBooks is becoming.
As an aside, the next thing apple could totally Kill It with is a iOS capable nano/iPhone on your wrist. The tech challenge is significant, but a wearable, portable computer that has a cell chip, BT, GPS and wifi? w.o.w.
And a prediction for 2012: You'll see the eBook readers (nook, kindle, etc) being offered for free. Yeah, that's right. Free. Maybe bundled with a "buy 10 ebooks, get the reader free" kinda thing, but what retailer won't go berzerk to put a device that at the touch of a button, makes a purchase in the hands of as many people as they can?
My $.02. Yeah, I'm a heretic. And I'm wrong about a lot of things. Oh well.
A very fair observation. The ISPs would do their own innovation - as in innovative tiered data plans.
And its not just a matter of dataplan, ISP networks cant support everyone streaming video at the same time. They slowdown peer2peer to avoid there network getting crush by the load. If too many people start streaming HD, they will have to slow it down.
Forget massive video streaming over the net, its not possible with current ISP networks. Don't forget malicious slowdowns done on purpose with the intention of screwing up Apple streams. I guaranty you that IPS that also offer live TV (like cable) will do this.
I see the charm, and this is exciting in that in offers a glympse of Apple's continuing tech innovations. But I still think the key to "cracking" TV is in Steve's comments regarding the integrated system of content providers and set top boxes and TV units is accurate: it isn't the tech that is hard - it is the business model. IOW: content content content. AppleTV remains a "hobby" because without user controled content (read: a la carte channels or programming) there isn't anything new for apple to offer beyond it.
Once they get a license deal in place, like they did for music on iTunes, this will be "cracked." To get that, they need to show studios (like the music labels) that they have a platform that can Kill It. Like iPods, and perhaps iBooks is becoming.
You are of course right. What I'd expect Apple to do, if the content providers would only allow them, is offer a subscription plan to Apple TV and iTV owners that grants them X number of shows per month for X number of dollars, plus X number of movies. Plans would be tiered, with prices like $29/mo, $59/mo and $99/mo. You'd subscribe to shows, not channels, and you'd get a number of allotted movie rentals per month as part of your subscription.
A consistent and continuous bill from customers each month is the only way I could see Apple offering something more affordable than the current $3-per-episode structure, which would become absurdly expensive if you watch 4 or more shows a night, every night.
The LCDs can't display proper blacks thing seems like such a dated issue. Newer ones provide relatively deep blacks and contrast ratios at least in line with most crts if not higher. Displaying an absolutely neutral black is a separate issue.
As I suspect you're aware, most if not all of the "technologies" used in LCDs to make up for their shortcomings end up introducing all new problems. "Intelligently" dimming parts of the screen can result in odd shifts in brightness mid-scene, dark scenes being dimmed to the point of being unwatchable, haloing effects, and from what I remember far worse viewing angles. All of the sake of trying to make LCDs reach black levels they can't actually achieve. This is much like the motion interpolation they introduced a few years ago to try and compensate for LCDs poor motion handling; that "intelligent" feature resulted in a lot of artifacting and tearing as the tv tried to make up frames in-between real frames. Not to mention the side-effect of making every movie look like a cheap daytime soap opera.
As Apple has waited this long to get into the TV business, if they're really going to do it I don't know why they wouldn't just wait another year or two for OLED to become affordable. LCD is a crap technology for television.
You are entitled to your opinion of course but I would argue this exact same thing but reversing the positions of OLED and LCD technology.
LCD tech is far superior to OLED and (opposite to your argument), all that OLED had going for it initially was superior contrast and cheap manufacturing. All subsequent "fixes" for all the many many things wrong with OLED (poor colour reproduction and poor performance in sunlight being the biggest two), have introduced more problems and more cost.
Here we are today years and years after the introduction of OLED and LCD panels *still* have better colour reproduction, better viewing angles, and better performance in daylight. They have also closed the contrast ratio gap substantially.
OLED on the other hand has made only minor improvements (if at all) in fixing the problems associated with that display technology. They still have that infinite contrast ratio, but they still can't reproduce colours accurately and still don't work very well in anything but a dimly lit room. On top of all that, every attempt to "fix" OLED's problems (along with some price gouging), has added substantial cost to the panels themselves.
No, that's not the case. Each pixel does not have its own light source. Each pixel attempts to block out as much light as it needs to from the main source. You haven't paid very much attention to TVs in the past 10 years have you?
Backlit LED TVs (and even some edge lit) do not have a main light source. There is an array of LEDs behind the LCD screen. Whilst it isn't a light per pixel, the LEDs are small enough they can vary the light across the screen to get deeper blacks. Watch a widescreen movie and the LEDs behind the bars of the letterbox will be off.
I'm not certain what is new with Apple's proposal that isn't already being done on TVs wih local dimming.
If you think OLED TV's don't offer a better picture than the best LCD's, you are mistaken. But there are two problems: 1) Price (the upcoming 55" LG is expected to be about $8,000) LG 55" OLED
2) No content to take advantage of the enhanced screen. Not even Blu Ray can show the detail or color range. So without content no real advantage. Similar to the problem 3D Tv's have.
But like everything else, advances are made and production costs will go down eventually. Sumitomo chemical in fact have announced some major breakthrough that is supposed to cut the costs of production dramatically. Sumitomo Breakthrough
I design DTV SoCs for a living, specifically video IP.
The SoC in your DTV already does all of the above in this article if it has 2D local dimming of the LED backlight. Most mid -> high end now have this as standard.
Aspect ratio info is ( depending on the codec ) coded into the elementary stream in the picture headers or via the embedded userdata. Additionally many systems have either SW or HW inbuilt BBD ( black bar detection ) when this info is available.
In short, nothing innovative here. The PQ ( picture quality ) processing in most TVs is where the innovation lies and is highly complex. Apple does not have this IP, something I know to be true as they tried to licence the IP for reasons known only to them.
Well, it might be innovative if the existing technology can only do BBD or simple aspect-ratio calcs. What Apple appears to be thinking of is a display where the black areas may be anywhere on the screen.
Imagine a TV that can have video, images, content guides, etc. in one or more resizable/relocatable windows (like we have now on our PCs). You would need some pretty sophisticated software to know where to dim the backlight.
You are entitled to your opinion of course but I would argue this exact same thing but reversing the positions of OLED and LCD technology.
LCD tech is far superior to OLED and (opposite to your argument), all that OLED had going for it initially was superior contrast and cheap manufacturing. All subsequent "fixes" for all the many many things wrong with OLED (poor colour reproduction and poor performance in sunlight being the biggest two), have introduced more problems and more cost.
Here we are today years and years after the introduction of OLED and LCD panels *still* have better colour reproduction, better viewing angles, and better performance in daylight. They have also closed the contrast ratio gap substantially.
OLED on the other hand has made only minor improvements (if at all) in fixing the problems associated with that display technology. They still have that infinite contrast ratio, but they still can't reproduce colours accurately and still don't work very well in anything but a dimly lit room. On top of all that, every attempt to "fix" OLED's problems (along with some price gouging), has added substantial cost to the panels themselves.
Your marks against OLED are the exact opposite of what I know to be true. From one of Sony's professional OLED field monitor descriptions:
Quote:
...offers picture contrast greater than a CRT display and is less affected by ambient light, allowing images to be viewed even in strong sunlight.
And regarding color accuracy, the description of another one of Sony's professional OLED monitors:
Quote:
(this) OLED panel gives unparalleled image accuracy compared to other LCD designs. Blacks are black, low light details are there, and color accuracy is exceptional.
EDIT: I wonder if you're not thinking of AMOLED, for which the flaws you mentioned are most certainly true. That is not the tech being used in broadcast displays and soon TVs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac
2) No content to take advantage of the enhanced screen. Not even Blu Ray can show the detail or color range. So without content no real advantage. Similar to the problem 3D Tv's have.
That...doesn't make a lot of sense. A better screen makes everything look better. Few if any tvs today can show the full contrast ratio of movies, because they can't reach infinite blacks and have rather poor color accuracy out-of-the-box. Seeing a wider color gamut would not be necessary to see the improvements an OLED screen offers over LCD; infinite contrast, more accurate color and great motion resolution.
That...doesn't make a lot of sense. A better screen makes everything look better. Few if any tvs today can show the full contrast ratio of movies, because they can't reach infinite blacks and have rather poor color accuracy out-of-the-box. Seeing a wider color gamut would not be necessary to see the improvements an OLED screen offers over LCD; infinite contrast, more accurate color and great motion resolution.
From the article I linked.
"Their RGBW approach should enable some truly spectacular color variety, getting much closer to reality than the classic RGB or even the more advanced RGBY (yellow) pixels. Yet as TechoftheHub, and other online experts have pointed out, television and movie production standards are actually inferior to the level of viewing that RGBW enables. Why buy a TV that can show you a cornucopia of eye-popping colors when no media is produced to take advantage of that? Even Blu-Ray quality movies won?t showcase the 55? TV?s expected color range. The same goes for refresh speed (most films are still shot at 24 Hz, not 100,000 Hz!). In other words, this TV is undoubtedly going to be amazing, but there may be nothing to watch on it."
But I agree with you that OLED is the future and offers a superior picture. It is just a matter of getting costs down to an affordable level.
One of Apple's big strengths is mobile devices, but they can't really bring that to bear in this fight.
One thing they could potentially leverage is iTunes Extras. Most of the time, with movies, it's a big yawn. But for TV shows, you only return to them week after week if you actually like the characters, or want to be one of them. In that sense people might actually watch iTunes Extras for a TV show.
Comments
Wonder what companies like Samsung, Sony, etc. do for their local dimming LED sets. Let the patent wars continue!!
Here is a production model form Sony with what they call "Intelligent Dynamic LED backlight"
http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/sto...HX909#features
Whether this adds anything to the viewing pleasure is another story.
Yes, that simple. Each pixel can be turned on or off, no? Or isn't that the case?
That is unfortunately not the case with LCD or Plasma, but that is the capability that OLED will bring to televisions when it becomes more affordable in the near future.
No, that's not the case. Each pixel does not have its own light source. Each pixel attempts to block out as much light as it needs to from the main source. You haven't paid very much attention to TVs in the past 10 years have you?
Nope, but you knew that after reading (and before posting)
That is unfortunately not the case with LCD or Plasma, but that is the capability that OLED will bring to televisions when it becomes more affordable in the near future.
Ah, ok. Thanks for that info.
if this method is going to be included in their upcoming (rumoured) TV set, I think it's bad news rather than good. If they use this technique, then it seems to me that they can't at the same time use the other technique they recently patented whereby a layer of OLED acts as a sort of dynamic backlight/mask which would seem on the surface to be a much more interesting and truly new approach.
It's a thing with tech research an patents. During R&D companies stumble over hundreds and thousends of interesting ideas with are patentable. In the end they will use just some dozens for actual products. Just saying, but I guess it's nothing new to you.
Sounds great but do you really think Apple would do this? I mean their Apple TV isn;t even 1080. If anything they're usually behind in everyone else and charge more. ODN;t get me wrong I love Apple and would love for something like this. But I just don't see it, literally...sorry bad pun...
Another good question would be: why would the content providers produce content in that format for a limited subset of sets
Here is a production model form Sony with what they call "Intelligent Dynamic LED backlight"
http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/sto...HX909#features
Whether this adds anything to the viewing pleasure is another story.
As I suspect you're aware, most if not all of the "technologies" used in LCDs to make up for their shortcomings end up introducing all new problems. "Intelligently" dimming parts of the screen can result in odd shifts in brightness mid-scene, dark scenes being dimmed to the point of being unwatchable, haloing effects, and from what I remember far worse viewing angles. All of the sake of trying to make LCDs reach black levels they can't actually achieve. This is much like the motion interpolation they introduced a few years ago to try and compensate for LCDs poor motion handling; that "intelligent" feature resulted in a lot of artifacting and tearing as the tv tried to make up frames in-between real frames. Not to mention the side-effect of making every movie look like a cheap daytime soap opera.
As Apple has waited this long to get into the TV business, if they're really going to do it I don't know why they wouldn't just wait another year or two for OLED to become affordable. LCD is a crap technology for television.
Once they get a license deal in place, like they did for music on iTunes, this will be "cracked." To get that, they need to show studios (like the music labels) that they have a platform that can Kill It. Like iPods, and perhaps iBooks is becoming.
As an aside, the next thing apple could totally Kill It with is a iOS capable nano/iPhone on your wrist. The tech challenge is significant, but a wearable, portable computer that has a cell chip, BT, GPS and wifi? w.o.w.
And a prediction for 2012: You'll see the eBook readers (nook, kindle, etc) being offered for free. Yeah, that's right. Free. Maybe bundled with a "buy 10 ebooks, get the reader free" kinda thing, but what retailer won't go berzerk to put a device that at the touch of a button, makes a purchase in the hands of as many people as they can?
My $.02. Yeah, I'm a heretic. And I'm wrong about a lot of things. Oh well.
A very fair observation. The ISPs would do their own innovation - as in innovative tiered data plans.
And its not just a matter of dataplan, ISP networks cant support everyone streaming video at the same time. They slowdown peer2peer to avoid there network getting crush by the load. If too many people start streaming HD, they will have to slow it down.
Forget massive video streaming over the net, its not possible with current ISP networks. Don't forget malicious slowdowns done on purpose with the intention of screwing up Apple streams. I guaranty you that IPS that also offer live TV (like cable) will do this.
I see the charm, and this is exciting in that in offers a glympse of Apple's continuing tech innovations. But I still think the key to "cracking" TV is in Steve's comments regarding the integrated system of content providers and set top boxes and TV units is accurate: it isn't the tech that is hard - it is the business model. IOW: content content content. AppleTV remains a "hobby" because without user controled content (read: a la carte channels or programming) there isn't anything new for apple to offer beyond it.
Once they get a license deal in place, like they did for music on iTunes, this will be "cracked." To get that, they need to show studios (like the music labels) that they have a platform that can Kill It. Like iPods, and perhaps iBooks is becoming.
You are of course right. What I'd expect Apple to do, if the content providers would only allow them, is offer a subscription plan to Apple TV and iTV owners that grants them X number of shows per month for X number of dollars, plus X number of movies. Plans would be tiered, with prices like $29/mo, $59/mo and $99/mo. You'd subscribe to shows, not channels, and you'd get a number of allotted movie rentals per month as part of your subscription.
A consistent and continuous bill from customers each month is the only way I could see Apple offering something more affordable than the current $3-per-episode structure, which would become absurdly expensive if you watch 4 or more shows a night, every night.
As I suspect you're aware, most if not all of the "technologies" used in LCDs to make up for their shortcomings end up introducing all new problems. "Intelligently" dimming parts of the screen can result in odd shifts in brightness mid-scene, dark scenes being dimmed to the point of being unwatchable, haloing effects, and from what I remember far worse viewing angles. All of the sake of trying to make LCDs reach black levels they can't actually achieve. This is much like the motion interpolation they introduced a few years ago to try and compensate for LCDs poor motion handling; that "intelligent" feature resulted in a lot of artifacting and tearing as the tv tried to make up frames in-between real frames. Not to mention the side-effect of making every movie look like a cheap daytime soap opera.
As Apple has waited this long to get into the TV business, if they're really going to do it I don't know why they wouldn't just wait another year or two for OLED to become affordable. LCD is a crap technology for television.
You are entitled to your opinion of course but I would argue this exact same thing but reversing the positions of OLED and LCD technology.
LCD tech is far superior to OLED and (opposite to your argument), all that OLED had going for it initially was superior contrast and cheap manufacturing. All subsequent "fixes" for all the many many things wrong with OLED (poor colour reproduction and poor performance in sunlight being the biggest two), have introduced more problems and more cost.
Here we are today years and years after the introduction of OLED and LCD panels *still* have better colour reproduction, better viewing angles, and better performance in daylight. They have also closed the contrast ratio gap substantially.
OLED on the other hand has made only minor improvements (if at all) in fixing the problems associated with that display technology. They still have that infinite contrast ratio, but they still can't reproduce colours accurately and still don't work very well in anything but a dimly lit room. On top of all that, every attempt to "fix" OLED's problems (along with some price gouging), has added substantial cost to the panels themselves.
No, that's not the case. Each pixel does not have its own light source. Each pixel attempts to block out as much light as it needs to from the main source. You haven't paid very much attention to TVs in the past 10 years have you?
Backlit LED TVs (and even some edge lit) do not have a main light source. There is an array of LEDs behind the LCD screen. Whilst it isn't a light per pixel, the LEDs are small enough they can vary the light across the screen to get deeper blacks. Watch a widescreen movie and the LEDs behind the bars of the letterbox will be off.
I'm not certain what is new with Apple's proposal that isn't already being done on TVs wih local dimming.
...quote/unquote " TV Sets"...
Not to be a dick, but for future reference, you don't ever need to type "quote/unquote"... it's like typing "slash".
2) No content to take advantage of the enhanced screen. Not even Blu Ray can show the detail or color range. So without content no real advantage. Similar to the problem 3D Tv's have.
But like everything else, advances are made and production costs will go down eventually. Sumitomo chemical in fact have announced some major breakthrough that is supposed to cut the costs of production dramatically. Sumitomo Breakthrough
I design DTV SoCs for a living, specifically video IP.
The SoC in your DTV already does all of the above in this article if it has 2D local dimming of the LED backlight. Most mid -> high end now have this as standard.
Aspect ratio info is ( depending on the codec ) coded into the elementary stream in the picture headers or via the embedded userdata. Additionally many systems have either SW or HW inbuilt BBD ( black bar detection ) when this info is available.
In short, nothing innovative here. The PQ ( picture quality ) processing in most TVs is where the innovation lies and is highly complex. Apple does not have this IP, something I know to be true as they tried to licence the IP for reasons known only to them.
Well, it might be innovative if the existing technology can only do BBD or simple aspect-ratio calcs. What Apple appears to be thinking of is a display where the black areas may be anywhere on the screen.
Imagine a TV that can have video, images, content guides, etc. in one or more resizable/relocatable windows (like we have now on our PCs). You would need some pretty sophisticated software to know where to dim the backlight.
You are entitled to your opinion of course but I would argue this exact same thing but reversing the positions of OLED and LCD technology.
LCD tech is far superior to OLED and (opposite to your argument), all that OLED had going for it initially was superior contrast and cheap manufacturing. All subsequent "fixes" for all the many many things wrong with OLED (poor colour reproduction and poor performance in sunlight being the biggest two), have introduced more problems and more cost.
Here we are today years and years after the introduction of OLED and LCD panels *still* have better colour reproduction, better viewing angles, and better performance in daylight. They have also closed the contrast ratio gap substantially.
OLED on the other hand has made only minor improvements (if at all) in fixing the problems associated with that display technology. They still have that infinite contrast ratio, but they still can't reproduce colours accurately and still don't work very well in anything but a dimly lit room. On top of all that, every attempt to "fix" OLED's problems (along with some price gouging), has added substantial cost to the panels themselves.
Your marks against OLED are the exact opposite of what I know to be true. From one of Sony's professional OLED field monitor descriptions:
...offers picture contrast greater than a CRT display and is less affected by ambient light, allowing images to be viewed even in strong sunlight.
And regarding color accuracy, the description of another one of Sony's professional OLED monitors:
(this) OLED panel gives unparalleled image accuracy compared to other LCD designs. Blacks are black, low light details are there, and color accuracy is exceptional.
EDIT: I wonder if you're not thinking of AMOLED, for which the flaws you mentioned are most certainly true. That is not the tech being used in broadcast displays and soon TVs.
2) No content to take advantage of the enhanced screen. Not even Blu Ray can show the detail or color range. So without content no real advantage. Similar to the problem 3D Tv's have.
That...doesn't make a lot of sense. A better screen makes everything look better. Few if any tvs today can show the full contrast ratio of movies, because they can't reach infinite blacks and have rather poor color accuracy out-of-the-box. Seeing a wider color gamut would not be necessary to see the improvements an OLED screen offers over LCD; infinite contrast, more accurate color and great motion resolution.
That...doesn't make a lot of sense. A better screen makes everything look better. Few if any tvs today can show the full contrast ratio of movies, because they can't reach infinite blacks and have rather poor color accuracy out-of-the-box. Seeing a wider color gamut would not be necessary to see the improvements an OLED screen offers over LCD; infinite contrast, more accurate color and great motion resolution.
From the article I linked.
"Their RGBW approach should enable some truly spectacular color variety, getting much closer to reality than the classic RGB or even the more advanced RGBY (yellow) pixels. Yet as TechoftheHub, and other online experts have pointed out, television and movie production standards are actually inferior to the level of viewing that RGBW enables. Why buy a TV that can show you a cornucopia of eye-popping colors when no media is produced to take advantage of that? Even Blu-Ray quality movies won?t showcase the 55? TV?s expected color range. The same goes for refresh speed (most films are still shot at 24 Hz, not 100,000 Hz!). In other words, this TV is undoubtedly going to be amazing, but there may be nothing to watch on it."
But I agree with you that OLED is the future and offers a superior picture. It is just a matter of getting costs down to an affordable level.
One thing they could potentially leverage is iTunes Extras. Most of the time, with movies, it's a big yawn. But for TV shows, you only return to them week after week if you actually like the characters, or want to be one of them. In that sense people might actually watch iTunes Extras for a TV show.