Talk:OLED/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Power consumption

This info needs to be added to article. If I remember right, it was 1 or 0.1 watts. I'll post the reference when I find it. But if that bit is really true, then that's fucking awesome.--70.65.229.62 (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

While the article could do with some figures, just saying 1 or 0.1 watts is pointless. What sort of screen size and brightness are we talking about? Is this current generation figures or future estimates? Nil Einne (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

According to this bit, it takes 0.37 watts for a 1.2-inch 96RGB x96 65k full color screen to display pure white, so the average is probably 0.15 or 0.10. If my math is right, that would be 100-150W for a 40inch on average and 400+ max, but my math is most likely wrong. It should be less than that, plus that is dated January 2004 and much progress has been made since, but it's all I could find.--70.65.229.62 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

energy efficiency compared to led in % (for example) would be nice in place of phrases like: "uses less power than led" etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazztone (talk • contribs) 09:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned flexible OLED article

I made a version of Organic light-emitting diode roll up display ages ago and it's orphaned. Feel free to add to it, merge it into the flexible OLED section here, or whatever else might work. ~Eliz81(C) 19:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Request.. photo of OLED in use.

A free use photo of an OLED powered up and displaying some graphics/text would be useful.. Electron9 (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added the above template to the top of the page and substed the above use so it doesn't show in the archives. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Request maybe granted here in this video compairson of OLED to TFT LCD http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/11/video-samsungs-12-megapixel-wb1000-rocks-analog-gauges-3-inch/ --24.26.83.214 (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Redundant

Isn't the phrase "Thus they draw far less power and, when powered from a battery, can operate longer on the same charge." redundant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.33.24 (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Flexible Display article

I think there should be a seperate flexible display article. Currently, when you search for a 'flexible display', you're redirected to the OLED article, even though this isn't the only flexible display technology and the concept of flexible displays is never mentioned.theBOBbobato (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Disadvantage

Well, if "Toshiba and Panasonic have come up with a way to solve this problem" is it still a disadvantage? ~RayLast «Talk!» 17:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In this section, the article mentions " Outdoor performance:.... leading to poor readability in bright ambient light, such as outdoors. " and "Power consumption:.... This can lead to disappointing real-world battery life in mobile devices". Yet, in the very next section, we are told about mobile phones "Such portable applications favor the high light output of OLEDs for readability in sunlight and their low power drain". I'd say this is contradictory information. Jd-boss-hogg (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

why it is called OLED?

What part of this technology utilizes diode as it is utilized in Light Emitting Diode (LED)? Beside polymer emits light when electricity is passed between cathode and anode. This is not really any kind of diode is it? Just trying to understand how diode technology is utilized in OLED. Thanks in advance. Jcharavda (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Jay Charavda 2010/01/08 Jcharavda (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A diode is a component that lets current flow easily from anode to cathode, whatever the material. I don't understand what you mean by "diode technology". The working principle section is not very well written, so it is not obvious that the physics behind is very similar - but it is.--Thorseth (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The whole article is very confusing, specially the mixing of single layer OLEDs (like P-LEDs) with multi-layer small molecule OLEDs makes it difficult for some one to understand its working principles. I suggest to separate P-LEDs and SM-LEDs into different articles. Further, the last section on applications, is weird. I will delete the rumors of the Toshiba display in 2009, as it obviously did not become true. 141.76.178.249 (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Screen Burn-In

Screen burn-in disadvantage claim requires a source to back it up. While I do not doubt the logic, conflating a component of a display with a display in its totality is unfair; IE commercial OLED displays could include burn-in mitigation in their controllers. In any case, citation needed! 97.120.251.155 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC).

Uncommon units of measure

The article uses the unit of measure Nit_(unit) which is not a commonly-known unit. I am linking the first occurrence. draeath (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

ASUS Waveface

I don't really know much about it, but I picked up from a few news aggregators that ASUS was showing off concepts for a model line of products called waveface. They showed off a TV, a tablet/laptop, and a cell phone/watch. Most of what I have seen is blogspam, but if someone knows more about it I think it would be good to add to the article somewhere. O76923 (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

" nope - high current never guarantees light "

True, but a straw argument. I never implied that a high current guarantees light. Naturally, this excludes black body radiation due to resistive heating ( "incandescence" ), not relevant here.

Last I heard, some guy named Ohm claimed current is inversely proportional to resistance. I was merely noting that original electroluminescent organic compounds were such good resisters that the slight amount of current and thus power you could put thru them at reasonable voltages could not produce visible amounts of light, no matter how otherwise efficient a light-emitter the coumpound might be. Electroluminescent organic compounds were discovered by the 1940's (or so ), but languished as lab oddities because of their low emission. The latter was directly a function of the fact that these compounds were essentially insulators.

This changed when high-conductivity organic compounds became available. And yes, many ( most?, maybe even almost all ) of these are not much electroluminenscent. But that is not what I was referring to. Now you could put enough current thru a highly-conductive electroluminescent material to produce practically-useful amounts of light. This led to the further development of more efficient ( in terms of light-output/watt ) electroluminescent compounds. But the original break-thru to practical devices was high-conductivity. Drjem3 (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The material on conduction which I removed is already present in several wikipedia articles. It is arguably not neutral, and I see no reason to add it into this article on light emission. What you write above falls under WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. This article does need expansion, but of OLED related material. Materialscientist (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree in the sense that I arguably need a cite to the fact that practical OELD devices were dependent on the development of highly-conductive polymers. However, pointing out that all practical OELD's involve conductive polymers is not exactly "synthesis". Perhaps just an internal wikilink or two would suffice. Drjem3 (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Surely they do, but there is no link (with WP:RS) between the added part and OLED. Wikilink won't do because most WP articles on this topic are underdeveloped. Let me explain another reason for my skepticism: that added part promotes poorly known primary publications (Australian journal which is not accessible to most scientists). Secondary sources are needed in any such case. Materialscientist (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If accessibilty is a problem, I can provide links to posted on-line versions of the papers. In any case, the abstracts ( which should be enough ) are available at the journal website. As for the rest, IIRC, the relative high conductivity of practical materials is pretty much "textbook" for electroluminescent polymers. So I will go looking in the textbooks, monographs, etc.. Drjem3 (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, no, accessibility now is fine. What I meant was that those articles were not accessible to most scientists at the time they were published. Materialscientist (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Nothing was, unless your library had a subscription. Also, my impression is that the Australian J. of Chemisty is a main-line journal. "Science" sure is. BTW, I am not sure what relevance this has to my point that practical electroluminescent devices had to await the discovery of conductive polymers.
Sure the was no internet then, but major libraries were subscribing to major journals, and my doubt is in the popularity of that journal outside Australia. Materialscientist (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
E.g., ref [1] notes that " The first use of conjugated polymers was as conductors in applications varying from battery electrodes to long-term stable polymer capacitors. However, in the late nineteen-eighties a group headed by Prof. Richard Friend of Cambridge University, UK discovered a new application for these polymers, namely as an electroluminescent device. " . ( Emphasis-added ). If this is not sufficent, doubtless I can find more. Drjem3 (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
This looks better, but the focus should shift then to this specific work and not the Australian reports (because it is indeed described as specific). The reference above is not a reliable source, but I assume those results were published and mentioned in some book or review. If not, they are hardly notable. Materialscientist (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Howabout the 2000 Nobel citation [2]. This says that:
  • " Electroluminescent polymers – second-generation conductive polymers ( ed-- note the title ). Since the first report of metallic conductivities in ”doped” polyacetylene in 1977, the science of conductive polymers has advanced rapidly in various directions. More recently, as high-purity polymers have become available, a range of semiconductor devices has been investigated. These include normal transistors and field-effect transistors (FET), and photodiodes and light-emitting diodes (LEDs). In particular, polymer LEDs now show attractive characteristics, including efficient light generation, with great potential for commercialisation." Drjem3 (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC).
    Again, good, but just a general overview. Light emission was achieved by other, non-trivial efforts and the doubts are those efforts were based on those early Australian works - even if the latter have priority in conductivity area, I see no evidence they were actually used by someone to built on and develop the OLED field, i.e. it would be a strong assumption. Materialscientist (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, electroluminescent organic compounds have been known for a long time. The point is that "practical" ones (that is, polymers capable of putting out commercially-useful amounts of light ) had to wait the invention of conductive polymers. Which is why the nobel citation dubbs them "second generation" conductive polymers.

I can keep providing suitable citations on this issue ad nauseum. But this does not seem to be necessary--- Your issue has changed from whether the development of practical OLED's was dependent upon the development of conductive polymers to which particular discovery of conductive polymers the invention of OLED's is immediately derived from. This is another matter entirely. Drjem3 (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really - we're discussing why a certain part was deleted from this article, and while we have a progress in understanding the issue (or I, you if wish), I still see no justification for inclusion of that specific part. Materialscientist (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
If you are going to talk about the history of OLED's at all, reference needs to be made to conductive polymers. E.g., from this history on the website of the Comboled project [3].
  • "The history linked to this new technology start approximately in 1950 when Bernanose and co-workers first produced electroluminescence in organic materials by applying a high-voltage alternating current (AC) field to thin films of special organic materials. But the low electrical conductivity of such materials limited light output until more conductive organic materials became available. (ed: emphasis-added)"
Comboled is a trans-European project to stimulate advances in OLED technology and this seems a consensus statement. Anyway, most histories of OLED's I can find contain analogous statements. Why not also the wikipedia article ? I am puzzled-- your statement certainly seems OR in the light of all this contrary evidence. Perhaps you can provide us with a citation that supports your position. Drjem3 (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for being rude, but the part which you're promoting (and restoring) does look merely as POV pushing on the priority of the mentioned Australian publications in discovery of conducting polymers. This part is already present in the relevant articles; as I mentioned above, it is original research to relate those publications with OLEDs. Lumping several (even correct) statements together does not make an encyclopedic entry. Materialscientist (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Howso ? Without conducting polymers, there would be no OLEDs. Numerous reliable secondary sources make this point, up to and including a nobel citation. So how can this possibly be considered original research ? As for POV pushing, I merely recite the history and give links to the relevant papers. Facts are facts. True, the history of conductive polymers is complicated. But this complication is part of the history of OLED's, which are the only conductive polymers with much commercial success to date. Drjem3 (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
"Without conducting polymers, there would be no OLEDs" - Eh. WP is modular in its nature, and there is no room for such spreading. General arguments don't cover choosing specific articles to represent that history. Materialscientist (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can direct me to some generally-accepted rule or guide-line that supports this assertion. Anyway, such is very subjective and susceptible to abuse. E.g., it could be used to rationalze the exclusion of almost anything, without have to argue the underlying point. Drjem3 (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Conductive polymers, continued

You did another revert. What do you have against the work of Weiss et al ? Prujudice against Aussies, or what <grin> ? Please argue this issue here. Your multiple reverts are getting pretty close to vandalism/edit warring. Anyway, I keep changing the material to respond to your objections and you keep reverting, citing some mysterious wikipedia rule that you do not seem able to authenticate. If you feel that Weiss et al's work was not the ultimate antecedent of conductive polymer OLED's, argue this question, instead of continually reverting. Drjem3 (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll add more later, but in short, no secondary source was provided to link those articles (whoever it is, Weiss or anyone) with development of the field (especially OLED, but others too). The history of each WP article should focus on its topic, not spread. More specific on Weiss: (i) we don't know the availability of their data to the public; absence of mentioning their work suggests it was not known. (ii) We don't know the reliability of their data (this it to the journal status at that time). (iii) There is no reliable link to OLED - any organic would emit flash of light at high voltage. Materialscientist (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I provided two good secondary sources linking conductive polymers with practical OLEDs. And yes, there is a controversy over exactly who developed conductive polymers first. There appear to have been multiple discoveries. How much they influenced each other is uncertain. E.g., from the Nobel prize page. " Prof. Dr. György Inzelt at Eötvös Loránd University says that, while they certainly deserve credit for publicising and popularizing the field, conductive polymers were "produced, studied and even applied" before the laureates' work.[1] ".
This history is an important part of the history of OLEDS. It is like talking about classical Mendelian genetics without talking about Gregor Mendel, just because he was three decades before everyone else. BTW, my local university library does carry the Australian Journal of Chemistry. So, this is apparently not so obscure. Drjem3 (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, we can't decide that the journal is not obscure (because it is in someone's local library - journals have their own ranking systems) or that certain "history" is "forgotten" and needs to be advertised. Basic wikipedia policies are against that. Using secondary sources is a good step forward, but those provided secondary sources do not link link Weiss (or others, for what it matters) to OLED, which brings up back to WP:SYNTHESIS. Materialscientist (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition to summarizing its "prehistory" as above, Inzelt's monograph also notes that one of the primary uses of conductive polymers is OLEDs. This completes the direct link, not that one is strictly necessary. Drjem3 (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that most of the content in question here would be more appropriate to be included in detail as part of the conductive polymer article (and much of it appears to be there already). It doesn't really need to be repeated in-depth in this particular article, but does need to have a mention here as an important step in the science behind OLEDs. I would move any information on the history of conductive polymers that's not explicitly electroluminescence related to that article, and include a few words on this page to the effect of "the development of OLEDs owes much to the improvement in conductivity of conjugated polymers, which is discussed in more detail at Conductive polymers#History and trends", which could have a reference to the Nobel citation among others. Pilchard (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion-- Minimally, give the cites ( never can have to many ). Allude to the controversy, but perhaps leave the details to conductive polymers. Drjem3 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

External link spam and potentially useful resource

An IP editor Special:Contributions/93.82.232.82 appears to have systematically added  http://led-professional.com "Global LED/OLED lighting technology information source"  to several lighting-related WP articles. Whilst not a useless resource - hence moved to here - this is clearly commercially motivated and isn't really appropriate to the article(s). Someone with a quick internet connection feel like going round with a mop after them? Trev M  ~  10:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Set up auto archiving and indexing on this page...

...which has got long and out of date. Find how to adjust the settings here: User:HBC Archive Indexerbot, User:MiszaBot/config

Started out at threads older than a month, leaving at least 4.

Best, Trev M  ~  11:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Now reconfigured for sporadic discussion, thanks to Kslotte. Trev M  ~  12:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Auto-archiving for sporadic discussions: archive 5 threads when 15 threads are reached. --Kslotte (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Request: move to OLED

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved to organic light-emitting diode. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Organic LED → OLED — Commonly referred to in its acronym form over the partial abbreviation "Organice LED." The entire article never uses the term "Organic LED." Bxj (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose I had never heard the acronym before. To be quite frank, the title should likely be organic light-emitting diode given even the light-emitting diode article doesn't even employ LED (its a redirect) as the article title. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, support move to organic light-emitting diode; note that the latter is the form used in the section header at Light-emitting diode#Organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs), and it is also the redirect linked to by that article. Powers T 23:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment You talk about not having heard of OLED before, but if you research the subject, it is actually commonly used. In the article alone, OLED is the most frequently used, followed by "organic light emitting diode" / "organic light-emitting diode" used a couple of times, and "Organic LED" never actually appears in the article body. Thus, you can see that OLED is an actually used term. The scope of the current proposed change does not include changing other articles such as Light-emitting diode / LED, and the new considerations we are thinking about here may not have previously been brought up there, nor are the situations equivalent: in those regards, the situation with Light-emitting diode / LED is irrelevant. Light-emitting diode spells "LED" out, Organic LED abbreviates "LED." If you're deciding by status quo only and not considering anything new, you could argue both ways. The spelled out organic light-emitting diode title is rather cumbersome and unnecessarily disambiguation-ish where it is not necessary, so common usage should take precedence. --Bxj (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Please see direction offered by WP:ABBR. To employ an acronym as the article title it must be almost exclusively known by its acronym and widely known and used, which I don't think is the case here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: rename to "organic light-emitting diode". OSX (talk • contributions) 09:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Refresh rates

"Response time: OLEDs can also have a faster response time than standard LCD screens. Whereas LCD displays are capable of between 2 and 8 ms response time offering a frame rate of +/-200 Hz, an OLED can theoretically have less than 0.01 ms response time enabling 100,000 Hz refresh rates"

The phrase +/-200 Hz makes no sense, you can't have negative hertz. Also from the quoted response times of 2 ms to 8 ms the refresh rate should be 125 Hz to 500 Hz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.165.66 (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This uncommon usage of '+/-' means approximately, or give or take. A better symbol to use would be '~', not available on everybody's keyboard. A better alternative would be to explicitly specify the complete range (125-500 Hz) or use the word approximately. Incidentally, 200 is the Harmonic mean of the frequency range; I suspect that the Geometric mean of 250 would be more correct. Trelligan (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Please

Can someone more experienced put these as references for the latest addition to "Sony Usage" talking about their cameras please?

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/24/sony-unveils-nex-7-24-3-mp-sensor-oled-viewfinder-1199-price/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/24/sony-alpha-a77-hands-on-preview-video/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/24/sony-announces-entry-level-a65-adds-yet-another-dslr-to-the-alp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.74.50.146 (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for addition to another article

Please see Talk:Luminous_efficacy#Need_table_references_and_comments_for_OLED_.28Organic_Light-Emitting_Diode.29_lighting - could someone on top of the subject add a balanced view of OLED luminous efficiencies to the table in Luminous_efficacy thanks.Imgaril (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Samsung's highest resolution at the time, of 6.22 million pixels?

It makes sense that those 6.22 million pixels are referring to 6.22 million sub pixels. A 1920x1080 display has 2,073,600 pixels, then multiply that by 3 RGB colors and you get 6,220,800 sub pixels (6.22 million sub pixels). I think this should be clarified, if this is the case. A true 6.22 million pixel display would be a strange and completely non-standard size.

Shall I change "6.22 million pixels" to "2.07 million pixels (1920x1080p), with a total of 6.22 million sub pixels."? Gatortpk (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Organic light-emitting diode → OLED – WP:COMMONNAME. Of the article's reliable sources, the only ones which use the expanded title are academic sources: popular sources, including technical ones, overwhelmingly use "OLED". The acronym is unambiguous and available, unlike "LED" for light-emitting diode (which is the reason that article is not at the initialed title). Additionally, when extra letters are tacked on the case becomes even clearer: AMOLED is by far the most common name for the "active-matrix organic light-emitting diode" technology (that article was at the very odd title of "active-matrix OLED" until I moved it). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support per COMMONNAME and nom. – ukexpat (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thermal Conductivity

"Due to its low thermal conductivity, an OLED typically emits less light per area than an inorganic LED."

Why would thermal conductivity relate to emission? More clarity, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.212.27 (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Dubious, unexplained, thus removed. Materialscientist (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Samsung stealing LG Technology?

(There is nothing about the investigation going on in South Korea where LG claimed that Samsung is stealing their OLED-television technologies. The local authorities thought it was a serious enough claim to raid their offices. These two companies were even trying reach a deal to cross-license patents.) [1]

1. http://www.oled-info.com/korean-police-raids-samsung-display-offices-looks-oled-tv-technology-documents

Markplzzz (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Millerc7 (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC) AntiWill (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sony, Toshiba, and Hitachi??

(They are combining on a joint venture to create a 5.2 inch OLED smartphone. It will boast 1080p and an astonishing 423 pixels per inch. The full HD OLED screen offers a RGBW pixel layout, which is a screen technology that offers an extra-white subpixel alongside the traditional red, green, and blue pixels; this addition enhances brightness and battery life in comparison to regular OLED displays and LCDs.) [1]

1. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57577836-1/scintillating-specs-new-5.2-inch-oled-display-for-smartphones/ Markplzzz (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Millerc7 (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC) AntiWill (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Canon getting into OLED

( Canon showed the prototype for their first digital camera with OLED technlogies in 2005) [1]. (In 2007 they showed their commitment to continuing to develop OLED cameras by acquiring Tokki, a manufacturer of OLED display equipment.) [2] On April 4th, 2013 Canon announced the VIXIA HF-G30 is a semi-professional camcorder that features a large CMOS sensor, a new DIGIC DV 4 CPU, 20X f/1.8 lens, Wi-Fi (with DSLR-like remote control via a browser) - and a 3.5" touch OLED display (1.23 million dots). It will launch in June 2013 for $1,700

Canon also announced two professional compact camcorders (the XA-20 and XA-25) that features a large CMOS sensor, a new DIGIC DV 4 CPU, 20X f/1.8 lens, XLR mic inputs and holders, independent audio level adjustment, SDI connectors (on the XA-25 only), Wi-Fi (with DSLR-like remote control via a browser) - and a 3.5" touch OLED display (1.23 million dots). These camcorders will also launch in June, for $2,499 (XA-20) and $2,999 (XA-25). ) [1]


1. http://www.oled-info.com/canon-announces-their-first-oled-products-pro-and-semi-pro-camcorders 2. http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20071114/142422/ Markplzzz (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC) AntiWill (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Millerc7 (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

five year old podcast

Just found a copy of Extreme Tech podcast from oct 2008 on my hdd and well they talk about sonys new OLED 11 inch display five years ago and counting, I think we can all ignore this now 90.195.207.101 (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

manufacturing section

is woefully thin and incomplete.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on OLED. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Comparison with inorganic LEDs

This article goes on and on about organic this, organic that, but never actually explains what the specific differences are between a standard LED and an OLED. This should be covered in the intro in the first couple sentences or in a section very near the top of the article.

Much of the press and push around OLED seems to be marketing babble for consumer electronics that isn't being entirely truthful.

WHY do HDTV's etc have to wait for OLEDs to be developed to make a functional display? With the development of long-life blue LEDs in the last decade, regular inorganic LED technology as it already exists is fully capable of functioning as an RGB display pixel.

Flexible OLED surfaces are irrelevant in the HDTVs being made now which are also not flexible, so standard LED technology would work fine in that regard too.

Yet for some reason standard inorganic LEDs are only being used as backlights in LCD displays. Why is that?

The only real "value" of OLED technology in a consumer device is its short functional lifespan. For a company producing consumer products, a short component lifespan helps to ensure future sales, so perhaps this is why there is not an interest in making inorganic LED HDTVs without LCDs?

-- DMahalko (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a basic difference between LED and OLED technology. LEDs are made from anorganic, monolithic semiconductor wafers comparable to most of the chips used in electronics. Individual LEDs are cut from such wafern and then contacted by wire bonding or other contacting methods used for chips. In order to build an LED display, sets of RGB LEDs are mounted together by hybrid technology to obtain individual pixels. Due to this mounting technique, the distance between the centers of neighboring pixels is rarely smaller than 1 mm. Therefore, such LED displays are normally used for large-screen applications such as electronic billboards, where the resolution is sufficent for viewing at a distance.
In contrast, OLEDs are made with organic materials deposited with thin-film technology on a large substrate. The substrates have the full dimensions of the display. The individual diodes, driving electronics and interconnections are made comparable to the internal structure of an integrated circuit (chip), allowing a much denser pixel arrangement as required by high-resolution small displays in smartphones etc.--BBCLCD (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on OLED. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on OLED. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Out of date?

As 2015 is well over, I think this line - "However, Samsung has accelerated its plans to release a foldable display by the end of 2015" - is a bit out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.89.143 (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Question/contradiction?

The article says

Originally, the most basic polymer OLEDs consisted of a single organic layer. One example was the first light-emitting device [...] which involved a single layer of poly(p-phenylene vinylene).

and

Single carrier devices are typically used to study the kinetics and charge transport mechanisms of an organic material and can be useful when trying to study energy transfer processes. As current through the device is composed of only one type of charge carrier, either electrons or holes, recombination does not occur and no light is emitted.

So my questions are:

  • Is the poly(p-phenylene vinylene) device a single carrier device? If so, how could it emit light?
  • Is the poly(p-phenylene vinylene) device really a diode? It seems symmetrical, so how could it block current in one direction but not in the other?

AxelBoldt (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

OLED MURA

Could we have a paragraph about the OLED Mura effect? [4] [5] Bonomont (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Lacking clarity and out of date information

Many claims in this article are made without clarification: there is a distinction between what is achieved in the lab and commercially in the real world. In the lab, OLED may be more efficient than alternatives. In the REAL WORLD, Samsung's AMOLED screens usually have lower efficiency at high brightness and better efficiency at low brightness/dark/off compared with competitive LCD technologies. This was a major contributing factor to the terrible battery life of some of HTC's Droid products (in addition to other problems). Kodak no longer owns any patents related to organic conjugated semiconducting/conducting/chromophoric molecules: they were sold (the entire portfolio) to LG, which is how LG got their foot in the door. Solution based thin film growth may be the only method applicable to researchers in "the chem building" or "the materials lab," but ALL of the current commercialized processes, either in use or being developed, use CVD at some point in the fab process (Samsung, AUO, and LG at the very least all use conjugated organic/organometallic species CVD at some point). There are more issues, and I think most of them are merely the result of changing state-of-the-art and cutting edge information on the subject.184.189.220.114 (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


What was out of date in November 2012 is woefully out of date in March 2017. This article should be severely pared down and rebuilt. For example, the article says "On June 25, 2012, Sony and Panasonic announced a joint venture for creating low cost mass production OLED televisions by 2013." I guess that didn't happen, then? 45.37.67.201 (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on OLED. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on OLED. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

reorganize manufactures and commercial usage into chronological order

it would be more organic to organize the manufacturers implementations by time, instead of by company. This would give a steady feeling of increasing technological sophistication, as it currently read the article is confusing because in this fiercely competitive area there a lot of outdated technologies, it's hard to tell 1ends and 1 begins . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:205:0:3C29:86C0:EFFF:FE10:41DA (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Pleaded display???

What is a pleaded display? 12.33.223.210 (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Reversing burn-in

Someone kindly deleted my edit. I am not sure why, have now tested on 4 devices and all showed improvement. As it relates to "compensation cycles" which are IIRC patented by several manufacturers it is said that I can test it on my own equipment (eg Note 4) but can't commercialise it sadly. In process but also a relevant fix is 3% on the red for extended periods using *#0*#, possibly many weeks for about a 5% improvement weekly so to regenerate a screen would be very hard. Also might be worth trying it on a more severely damaged panel such as one from an S8 (£40 on ebay) with IR tuning via a floodlight panel of my own design cooled with a flowing water system and controlled using active feedback through an infrared thermometer IC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.25 (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Dark Mode section

I've removed the Dark Mode section since it contained informations already present elsewhere in the page regarding energy consumption and efficiency. In addition it contained incorrect statements about who and when introduced this mode. Enaki (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Organic LCD

There is currently a Draft:Organic Liquid Crystal Display article in the works, but it seems to be specific to the FlexEnable company. Should this article be started and spun off, or stay with FlexEnable until other companies create the technology? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources for IGZO / I am a clueless new user.

So uh, since the sources mentioned have been deleted along with the sentence -- I assume the current sources [89][90] etc. are correct. Since the deletion was due to insufficient sources, I was referring to these:

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/08/report-igzo-display-tech-will-help-switch-battery-life-response-times The Ars Technica article is based on a WSJ article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-nintendo-switch-to-have-igzo-display-from-sharp-11565160555) "Nintendo declined to comment" on the subject. The old and new Nintendo Switch screens seem to be made by Innolux. https://twitter.com/spawnwavemedia/status/1159230146940981249?lang=en https://switchchargers.com/comparing-the-new-and-old-nintendo-switch/

https://www.oled-info.com/tags/technical-research/oxide-tft Cannot verify identity of publisher.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/03/23/sharp-seeking-ipad-business-reportedly-prioritizing-oled-igzo-panel-production-line-change Based on a pay-walled article which seems to be based on an anonymous source.

https://www.sharpsma.com/igzo Directly from Sharp, which has made numerous false statements. See the first link.

Disclaimer: I am new to Wikipedia and I do not have the slightest idea what I'm doing or how the coding works.

Disclosure: Google my name and you'll know why I'm here. :P I purchased an expensive UltraSharp IGZO UHD display as part of an extremely expensive Dell Precision 7530 workstation. Said display is defective trash and I am not particularly happy about that, but I will not be modifying / deleting anything based on personal animosity. Given the shakiness of the sources used, I believe that this edit was appropriate.

Karath Vanashta (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Is not LG TVs active matrix, i.e. AMOLED?

White subpixels do depend on their colorful subpixels, but still. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Use of "to half brightness"

Under 9.1 (Lifespan), I feel the use of the term "to half brightness" is rather clunky, and that half-life would be a better term to use. That is all. Someone404 (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Half-life is a term restricted to radioactive isotopic decay. 2.28.151.187 (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah. While I knew that that was its primary usage, I wasn't sure if it was used for more colloquial contexts. Someone404 (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Half-life is common to radioactive decay, with most others using 1/e for math reasons. In the case of radioactivity, it is the time until have the atoms have decayed. In the OLED case, half brightness doesn't mean that anything half decayed. I believe reduced brightness is commonly used for descriptions of incandescent and fluorescent lamps, but I haven't thought about the details recently. Gah4 (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Lumen maintenance

It seems that Lumen maintenance is commonly used for inorganic LEDs to describe their lifetime. That is time until light output falls to maybe 70% of initial. I believe (unlike the article mentions) it is also used for fluorescent lamps, which often reduce brightness with age. Seems to me that it applies here, too. Gah4 (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ György Inzelt (2008). Conducting Polymers: A New Era in Electrochemistry. pp. 265–269.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:OLED/Archive_2&oldid=1137053128"