Quantcast

NEWS: Samsung Micro LED TV launch supported by new supplier

encaser

Member
The usual story, read one on this and job on by until years later it's done - if at all.
 

Tempest

Distinguished Member
It's times like this I wish I had a Tardis and could jump forwards about 10 years so I can buy a 65" one for £399 :)
 

Evinger

Well-known Member
It's times like this I wish I had a Tardis and could jump forwards about 10 years so I can buy a 65" one for £399 :)
Yeah, but then there will be the next improvement, just released, but still astronomically expensive, so you jump forward another ten years
And find the next....
You get my drift ;)
 

BillRawles

Active Member
I've not been following this. Is it just Samsung pushing micro LED development? It sounds like next proper advancement in high end panels. If Samsung are the only game in town then fair enough but I'm just not a fan (as much as you can be fan of any mega corp trying to extract money from you!). I'm hoping against hope that Pana could release a proper successor to the DX902 with something along the lines of this tech. . . .
 

xxGBHxx

Well-known Member
Yeah, but then there will be the next improvement, just released, but still astronomically expensive, so you jump forward another ten years
And find the next....
You get my drift ;)
This is an interesting view.

There are finite limits at play here and probably the biggest is the ability of the viewer (i.e. human beings) to perceive or appreciate a difference. While technology can continue to advance (getting thinner, cheaper, lighter, brighter etc.) the human is the one static/fixed factor in this race.

On a wider basis there are also very clear "laws of nature" limits. You can only get "so" thin. You can only get "so" bright. You can only get "so" big and so on. Those are limits we are very rapidly approaching and it's not a limitless distance away. Once micro LED comes in and if (big if!) it delivers on its promises then outside very specialist installs, who is going to have screens much bigger than 110" in their homes?

More specifically lets take brightness as an example. Once you get to a certain brightness (I don't know what it is but lets say it's 10000 nits) going any brighter means making people blind as the limit of human eyesight is fixed and immovable. Once you can get 10000 nits on a per led basis then there's no where else to go. Doesn't matter if you can make the LED 20,000nits or 1,000,000 nits as you'll never ever be able to use it in a TV for risk of making someone blind!

Same thing with thinness. Once you get them thin enough and strong enough to roll up into a tube there's not much else you can do with them. Colour response is another, once you can hit 100% of BT2020 accurately where else is there to go? Even if you did cover a wider gamut no one could see it so what would be the point?

Now new applications might instead mean you'll be wallpapering with them in 20 years time and these new applications might transform the very nature of what we think of as a "screen" but if we're talking about a "TV" as we are today, not so much.

I would predict in about 20 or maybe 30 years we'll have reached the end of the road as far as screen technology is concerned. TV's will be as thin, as bright, as colourful and as cheap as we can possibly make them and there will be no margin or incentive to improve them any further as there is no benefit that will ever justify the cost of making those tiny, additional incremental improvements. Human perception and the laws of physics really do define the end point here and once reached there is absolutely no where else to go.

G
 

jimbo20004000

Standard Member
This is an interesting view.

There are finite limits at play here and probably the biggest is the ability of the viewer (i.e. human beings) to perceive or appreciate a difference. While technology can continue to advance (getting thinner, cheaper, lighter, brighter etc.) the human is the one static/fixed factor in this race.

On a wider basis there are also very clear "laws of nature" limits. You can only get "so" thin. You can only get "so" bright. You can only get "so" big and so on. Those are limits we are very rapidly approaching and it's not a limitless distance away. Once micro LED comes in and if (big if!) it delivers on its promises then outside very specialist installs, who is going to have screens much bigger than 110" in their homes?

More specifically lets take brightness as an example. Once you get to a certain brightness (I don't know what it is but lets say it's 10000 nits) going any brighter means making people blind as the limit of human eyesight is fixed and immovable. Once you can get 10000 nits on a per led basis then there's no where else to go. Doesn't matter if you can make the LED 20,000nits or 1,000,000 nits as you'll never ever be able to use it in a TV for risk of making someone blind!

Same thing with thinness. Once you get them thin enough and strong enough to roll up into a tube there's not much else you can do with them. Colour response is another, once you can hit 100% of BT2020 accurately where else is there to go? Even if you did cover a wider gamut no one could see it so what would be the point?

Now new applications might instead mean you'll be wallpapering with them in 20 years time and these new applications might transform the very nature of what we think of as a "screen" but if we're talking about a "TV" as we are today, not so much.

I would predict in about 20 or maybe 30 years we'll have reached the end of the road as far as screen technology is concerned. TV's will be as thin, as bright, as colourful and as cheap as we can possibly make them and there will be no margin or incentive to improve them any further as there is no benefit that will ever justify the cost of making those tiny, additional incremental improvements. Human perception and the laws of physics really do define the end point here and once reached there is absolutely no where else to go.

G
That is nowhere else to go until for example 3D colour holographic television becomes a reality in peoples homes. That might realistically be at least 30 years away but there will always be improvements to TV’s displays beyond what you have listed because some innovations we cannot even imagine yet. Back in the 1960’s (showing my age now); who would have thought there would be such a thing as the internet, mobile phones, flat screen 3D colour TV’s, Dolby Atmos/DTS:X Pro, or electric cars, to name just a few? ;)
 

Coulson

Well-known Member
I was really hoping that mini-LED would fill the gap while waiting for micro LED. So far the technology is not that impressive.
 

Goldorak

Distinguished Member
I was really hoping that mini-LED would fill the gap while waiting for micro LED. So far the technology is not that impressive.
Too early to say that but I see your point...
Only TCL showed something very promising with mini led.
I read a surprising french article today and’ nearly started new thread....
Samsung is apparently considering bypassing totally or partially the qantum dot oled for....wait for it....QNED !!!!!!
Basically, that’s the same as qantum Oled but replacing the blue oled with a blue nano (micro) led...
Not bad idea versus pure micro led and apparently easier/cheaper to do...
I will post the article and the translation...
Handle with care as always but it is not a bad idea at all...if it ever happens...
 

Goldorak

Distinguished Member

Goldorak

Distinguished Member
This has been talked about before. Jason mentioned once in interview. QD-OLED will still come, blue microleds won't be cheap and easy to mass produce at affordable prices
Not bad idea still if it works
Assuming it isn’t significantly cheaper that standard micro led
 

xxGBHxx

Well-known Member
That is nowhere else to go until for example 3D colour holographic television becomes a reality in peoples homes. That might realistically be at least 30 years away but there will always be improvements to TV’s displays beyond what you have listed because some innovations we cannot even imagine yet. Back in the 1960’s (showing my age now); who would have thought there would be such a thing as the internet, mobile phones, flat screen 3D colour TV’s, Dolby Atmos/DTS:X Pro, or electric cars, to name just a few? ;)
Everything you listed was imagined long before it became a reality and certainly long before the 1960's. The first electric cars appeared in the late 1800's. The first mobile phone patent was in 1917. The Internet was imagined in the late 1800's. Now it certainly took a time for those ideas to be realised but that's mainly because the technology underpinning it took time to get small, fast and cheap enough.

What you're missing though is that there's not going to be another technology revolution as it's a one time event. The same as the industrial revolution and the steam age etc. They are all one time events and once it's done, it's done. You also seem to be ignoring there are very real absolute limits of both human beings and physical properties. You can't simply "imagine" breaking the laws of physics or changing human physiology and anatomy. The speed of light is the speed of light and you can't go beyond that. It's not up for question or debate. You can certainly imagine breaking it but ultimately there is a hard stop. It's the same with human beings who react with the world in very specific ways. Technology is ultimately designed for humans and humans don't change (well they do but not on a timescale that's relevant). So once we've advanced the technology to meet human limits there is no where else to go and no benefit to improvement.

Right now we're in the refining stage of the technology revolution. The fundamental properties of electronics and technology are not changing, we're just getting smaller, more powerful, thinner and so on but there's laws of physics limits. The days of fundamental discovery are all but gone in this field. Electricity is discovered and not going to change. The elements are discovered not going to change. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of unanswered questions in science of course but none of those are going to fundamentally change the purpose of a screen.

To focus on another example you mentioned: mobile phones. Where are they going to go next? There's been next to no innovation in mobile phones for 10 years or more. They've got thinner, faster, more colourful etc. but ultimately their functions and features have barely changed. The next big leap will be batteries that last longer than a day and once that's done I don't see where anything else is going to come from as they already perform the tasks they are designed for as fast as humans can manage. Another massive leap might be where there is no screen and it interfaces directly into your brain so there is that. But the gulf between where we are now to that is vast and is more likely never going to get realised.

Adding to that, none of the things you've listed are to do with screens (POSSIBLY Atmos/DTS-x can be construed into the discussion). I was specifically addressing screens. If you open it up wider there's plenty of scope for innovation and discovery. Personal jet packs that are cheap, last longer than a couple of minutes and are safe are no where near that level. One day I'm sure someone will crack a compact fuel cell with an energy density high enough and safe enough to power flight for a few hours. Or teleportation. Or light sabres and so on.

Now as for 3d holographic TV you might be right, but as the first forays into it are already realised and normal 3D was of little interest to people in their homes I'm not sure it will ever gain mass appeal outside advertisers.

The next REAL advance in my opinion will be Google glass type approaches ultimately leading to an augmented reality where images are projected directly onto the retina (through something like a projector contact lens). Now THAT is exciting and while solutions like Google Glass hinted at where things might go we are a long long way away from realising the technology to make that happen. But that's not a screen in the traditional sense, that's something very different. It certainly might achieve the same purpose (display images for you to see) but it's a radically different way to do it. The concept of a flat panel displaying a picture really is hard bounded and will be as good as it will ever be able to get in about 30 years.

G
 
Last edited:

crashcris

Well-known Member
I've not been following this. Is it just Samsung pushing micro LED development? It sounds like next proper advancement in high end panels. If Samsung are the only game in town then fair enough but I'm just not a fan (as much as you can be fan of any mega corp trying to extract money from you!). I'm hoping against hope that Pana could release a proper successor to the DX902 with something along the lines of this tech. . . .
I'm confused, are you suggesting that Panasonic is run as a 'Not for Profit' purely altruistic company and that Samsung are an evil Television innovating pocket thief? :thumbsdow
 

Similar threads

Trending threads

Top Bottom