Here's a new technological entry that is making opticians rub their hands with glee. Last week Sony Corp. revealed its newest development -- a razor-thin display that bends like paper and shows full-color video. The 2.5-inch video screen is only 0.3 millimeters thick. To us American neophytes that's equivalent to a thickness of 0.01 inch.
The new display combines two different technologies, which seemed to have come directly from an episode of Star Trek: Sony's organic thin film transistor, which is required to make flexible displays, and organic electroluminescent display. Other companies, such as LG and Phillips, also have plans for paper-thin displays. However, according to representatives at Sony, the organic electroluminescent display delivers better color images and is more suited for video. As to what the display will be used for, a spokesperson for the corporation mentioned that they could be wrapped around a lamppost, or a person's wrist, or put up in someone's house like wallpaper.
Now, don't run out to your local electronics mega-store for this new item quite yet because, according to some industry experts, the paper-thin display isn't quite ready for the consumer market. One such expert, Tatsuo Mori, an engineering and computer science professor at Nagoya University, says that some hurdles remain to put this on store shelves. Factors he considers are increasing the size of the screen, making it more durable, and cutting costs. The biggest hurdle that Sony has to clear, according to Mori, is adapting the pliancy to the current displays on the market. We're talking about LCD and plasma displays here.
What do you think? Is this something you would consider buying when it came to market?
TV Squad Ten: Top Ten ESPN shows from worst to first
Andy Richter: The TV Squad Interview
Have any questions for Vik Sahay of Chuck? Ask them here!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-28-2007 @ 12:18PM
Bash said...
I've been following OLEDs since 1998. Back then they had a 1 inch display with 120 x 80 resolution - every two years they double the size and double the lifetime of these things. So now they are up to 2,5 inches and (I guess) a lifetime of 40.000 hours - with 1440 hours in a month that means this thing lasts 2 years tops before losing it's ability to display ANYTHING.
I WOULD buy this thing IF it came in a size of 42" at 3000$.
And that's about to happen around 2020.
So honestly - don't report this on a TV blog :-)
This is more likely to be used as a display on a car radio or car GPS/navigational system display, for watches, displays on all sorts of appliances in the kitchen and cellphones - because it uses so much less energy compared to LCD-Displays AND it has a better contrast ratio.
So I guess I will buy this display in my PSP 2 in about three to five years and in a new cellphone around 2008.
I will buy this as a TV in 2020.
Reply
5-28-2007 @ 12:36PM
David said...
I'm still waiting for them to get all the bugs out of the TV screen paint somee company, not Sony, made.
Reply
5-28-2007 @ 12:46PM
ManiacJoe said...
No offense, but i think you may have your math a little wrong.
With 24 hours a day, that's about 744 hours in a month (max). Which equals a lifespan of about 4 years.
Reply
5-28-2007 @ 1:20PM
Jaymez said...
As a TV, no, I wouldn't buy it. I refuse to spend more than a couple hundred bucks on a TV and the costs would be outrageous. I won't even go plasma/HD/flat screen any time soon.
I'm sure it'll end up in some gadget sooner or later that I'll own. I won't get excited about it, though.
Reply
5-28-2007 @ 2:56PM
Bash said...
Yup I added a 2 somewhere :-)
Anyway - 4 years for a TV to totally cease operation is simply unacceptable.
Reply
5-28-2007 @ 10:16PM
Rob said...
Ok great,.. you figured out your math problem,.. but don't you think you're being a bit harsh, Bash? Your numbers assume that the screen will be on 24-7 which isn't reasonable. Realistically, you'd be looking at something like 7 hours a day* which would equate to 217 hours a month and 2604 hours in a year. Using your number of a 40,000 hour lifespan, that would mean the realistic lifespan would be closer to 15 years.
eh,.. but what do I know,.. I'm just a guy that has so much extra time on his hands that I can devote part of it to refuting other people's illogical claims and typing rambling posts with calculations about things I have no knowledge about.
So maybe you're right,.. who knows,.. who cares.
*http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html#tv_stats
Reply