Is OLED a lot of crap?

I was thinking of trying some OLED displays (128x64 Upon reeding a dataheet I notice the following BAD stuff:

needs 3 V AND 14 V cannot stand water on display. Needs to be stored between 10 and 60°C, no frost????

*Cannot tolerate UV light* Needs polariser ? Why? reduces light by < 50 %?

Am I misinterpreting things or is OLED DOA? I deleted that pdf, not a usable product. Oh, and it sucks 250 mA at 14 V too it seems. So no transflective option for low power. And very expensive too.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje
Loading thread data ...

I don't think that's what they make OLED's out of, no.

--
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Wescott

I've used QVGA OLED in one of the projects. It was while ago. Can't tell =

you the make and the manufacturer, so my rant is as pointless as yours. Used it for *outdoors* because of good visibility in the sunlight. No=20 problems other then it was extremely easy to damage it by power glitch.

Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant

formatting link

Reply to
Vladimir Vassilevsky

On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:51:14 -0500) it happened Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote in :

formatting link

Yes, that was one of my arguments too. But a good transflective LCD can work too I think. I get a very good contrast from my Samsung LCD19 128x64 with direct light and backlight off. Maybe viewing angle is better for OLEDS (have not tried one)?

Well that at least is easy to fix, but if it cannot handle sub zero temps then it cannot be used outdoors or in a car.

Thank you for sharing your experience.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje
[OLED display]

What? I thought you guys had global warming over there.

--
SCNR, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Joerg

I tried designing a monochrome 128x64 OLED into a product about 5 years ago. Luckily a more senior (experienced) businessman in the organisation said "well OK then... but you gotta design it to take an LCD too because this looks kinda risky".

He was absolutely right - the things proved devilishly difficult to manufacture and we only ever saw about 4 samples. One of the big problems is that oxygen has to be kept away from the chemicals that glow, which is rather tricky. For full colour, I was told the different colours aged at different rates (kind of like a CCFL tube which has a brightness half-life of a few thousand hours) so you might have a good colour balance between RGB when new, but after a thousand hours the balance is noticeably off. In our monochrome case, the manufacturers had been a bit too clever and were trying to do too many innovations at once: there were two major OLED technologies and they figured they could leapfrog competitors by using the one which looked cheap in the long run. However, I got a feel for the things.

Firstly, they are usually run by a control chip integrated onto the rear surface (chip-on-glass) which has been cleverly modelled to use the same registers etc as an LCD control chip, although there are one or two relatively minor differences mainly in initialisation, so it was quite easy in the end for the software to control both an OLED and LCD.

The power supplies were a nightmare for our battery-operated instrument, something like 140mA and a +3V / -14V supply sounds about right. We had to make our own for certification reasons, but the controller chips will do the -14V for you IIRC.

Our marketing people were delighted with the look because the customers were generally going to use the device in poorly lit areas, but as development continued we began to notice some disturbing problems.

Firstly the displays would show screen burn after not long at all, just a few tens of hours of usage. Remember how cathode ray tubes used to exhibit this many years ago? So beware if your display will have static text.

Secondly the brightness dropped VERY rapidly within the first couple of weeks' usage.

But the killer was when we tried them in direct sunlight. It turns out that although they seemed really bright in the lab, still (just) legible even when we held them in sunlight streaming through a window, it was a different story when we *took them outside*. Once your eye is surrounded by sunlight on all sides, your pupil contracts and the amount of light you see from the OLED is greatly reduced. Perhaps there's a contrast issue with the surroundings too. Anyhow they were no longer readable, even on a cloudy day.

As I said... this was a few years ago. They may be better these days: survival of the fittest, accumulated improvements over several generations and many millions of units, etc.

--
Nemo
Reply to
Nemo

You forgot that bridge in Brooklyn that is for sale..

Reply to
Robert Baer

Just from the title of the post alone: YOU are a goddamned total retard!

Good for you, dumbfuck.

WTF do you care, you stupid f*ck? The only BAD stuff in this thread is you, and your sub-human grasp of the world.

You are an idiot. That is only the SPEC for the POS you looked at, dumbfuck.

That is the POS you looked at, dumbfuck.

That is the POS YOU looked at, dumbfuck.

If it requires a polarizer, it is NOT OLED, idiot.

OLED illuminated EACH pixel, not that your retarded ass would understand that premise, much less what it means.

You are an utter idiot, so misinterpretation goes with your pathetic territory.

OLED is BETTER than ANY other display technology there is.

ONLY idiots like you that would pay way too much for way too little will be responsible for driving its price up.

Should have deleted yourself.

You ain't real bright, boy.

You are an idiot. It is NOT a backlit technology, dumbfucktard.

Only because of idiots like you.

Reply to
Copacetic

No, just local brain deadness.

Reply to
Copacetic

He must have been on some backdoor supplier rip it shop site.

Like using Coby instead of Sony.

You get what you pay for. Coby is total crap.

Reply to
Archimedes' Lever

Not ready for prime time, IMHO. They look nice, but do you really feel like coding a "screen saver" for your 'scope to prevent burn-in?

Seems like makers have dropped the line in thes past few years.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

--
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

Are you sure? It's organic.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

--
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

There is no burn in with OLED, so no friggin screen saver would be needed.

Using one on a scope is pretty dumb though. Easy enough to code a dimming "screen saver" too. Cuts down on consumption as well.

Reply to
Copacetic

Can you name an LED that isn't?

Do you not consider silicon to be "organic" in nature?

Reply to
Copacetic

No. Organic means it is carbon based. Diamonds and crap are organic, whereas silicon and gallium are not. The molecules of OLED compounds are loaded with carbon rings.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

--
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

formatting link

Eg. page 20 onwards, they call it "Image sticking". It's to be expected as long as the lifetime is so short- the brightness of the illuminated pixels fades fast. It's a serious problem.

Might last longer that way.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

--
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

That statement sure tells us a lot about you!

Reply to
tm

So instead of growing a crystal, they grew mold. :-)

It is all organic in the bigger picture.

Reply to
Copacetic

Damn. I hate being old. I haven't been keeping current.

Are you familiar with the IBM OLED fired display from about 8 years ago?

The "pixels" were individually fiber fed to the "screen" face.

All the OLEDs were down on a chip... or array of chips.

11 Million hand "wired" pixels.

I would go the way Sharp has and use 4 primaries per "pixel".

Probably reduce the "power" level on two of the colors.

Now, they all want to put them right there on the screen and fire them with pathways similar to what gets used on LCD arrays.

No wonder they "wear out".

They'll have to go back to fiber wired chip arrays to get the longevity back, and even make them able to be swapped out if needed. Displays larger than the IBM model would have to have pixels with longer fiber paths' on times shifted the same way large CRTs had dynamic focus excitation waveforms.

Reply to
Copacetic

Your one liner, retarded reply tell us worlds about you too, Buckwheat.

I read the CRC handbook back in '73 at 13 years old. You?

Reply to
Copacetic

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.