Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (4491)	6/12/2002 4:06:05 PM
From: Ron Dior	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

We put up with the present electronic displays because we're used to them; it's "good enough"; we haven't seen better and better isn't available. The real standard that electronic display technology should be measured against is good film, still photos, and print, and it doesn't come close. I think the ultimate standard is what the eye sees in real life. “Real vision” is the most emotional stimulant going. The whole idea behind TV/VIDEO is to stimulate the senses. This is why so many have tried their hands at 3D and sensor-round though failing miserably. They have also experimented with certain odors to captivate a feeling of reality. This is where virtual reality is supposedly headed but has failed miserably too. I do agree though that when working with a two-dimensional image it should be at least as good as film. I'm sure if technology were available that compared favourably with those media people would pay a premium for it. A premium maybe, but not a very large premium. Plasma sets have proven this. HD RPTVs are flying off the shelves for two reasons. One is the price and the second is the size of the picture. Remember TV’s must get larger and cell phones must get smaller for them to attract buyers. No one likes a bulky TV but people would still rather have a bulky TV with a fair picture and LARGE screen rather than a great picture inside a thin casing with a small screen. That’s the bottom line. Find the company that can do all three well and you find your winner. OLEDS will be the tech of choice for video displays, I'm sure, because they are very fast on/off, emissive, bright, good colours, are transparent - they can be stacked (making very high pixel density), can be attached to plastic substrates (flexible, light weight displays). Displays have good viewing angles, can be seen in bright sunlight , and have fewer manufacturing steps than LCD. It appears to me by everything that I have read that this tech has a disadvantage on larger screen sizes. Projection or forms of has no problem with this and is thus far bettering their quality and weight problems. IYO How easily could OLEDs move into the 50” or better screen sizes while keeping their quality and price competitive once it has developed? Also 16:9 will be the standard so the screen sizes will need to get bigger more rapidly than the quality will need to improve. Their big competitor is Kodak, which owns the original OLED patents and is selling licences etc. Something else I am not crazy about. Something like this will slow down the acceptance and development of this technology. I agree 100% that widescreen HDTV is the wave of the future and a new standard is needed both in equipment and broadcast but some of this cutting edge stuff still looks shaky to me. Are we better off looking for technologies that already exist that can be made better? Where will the profit be? Could LCoS be more easily adapted to what the wants of the consumer are? If you could take my 65” HD RPTV and make it about 200lbs lighter, 10” narrower, and allow me to see it on any angle I would take one for each room of my house. Ron Dior