13.5-inch OLED prototype has 3840×2160 pixels

Good news on the display front. Sharp and Semiconductor Energy Laboratory have jointly developed a new oxide semiconductor that promises screens with higher resolutions, lower power consumption, and narrower bezels. The tech adds a crystalline structure to an oxide semiconductor that would otherwise be amorphous. The end result is smaller thin-film transistors with higher performance, according to Sharp’s press release.

What sort of displays will this new crystalline oxide enable? Sharp has a couple of LCD prototypes, including a 6.1″ screen that serves up a whopping 2560×1600 pixels—the same resolution as a 30″ desktop monitor. There are OLED prototypes, too. The most impressive of those is a 13.5-incher with a 3840×2160 resolution that offers four times the pixels of a 1080p display. The screen’s 326 PPI matches the pixel density of the iPhone 4’s Retina panel.

As always seems to be the case with cool new technologies, challenges remain in the all-important realms of “service life and production.” The press release doesn’t even hazard a guess as to how soon displays featuring the crystalline oxide will be available to end users. It does, however, point out that the material might also have applications outside the display world.

More details will be provided at the Society for Information Display symposium in Boston next week. Presumably, the prototypes will be on display, as well. Thanks to Endgadget for the tip.

Comments closed
    • crose
    • 8 years ago

    I still remember the days when 19-inch screens were luxury and weighed 30kg. And picture quality was half as sharp as even the cheapest LCD are today.. we have come a long way since then!

    Now if they could only make the iPad 3 screen sip power instead of drinking like it just ate an habanero… ay ay.

    • anotherengineer
    • 8 years ago

    Nice.

    Stitch 4 of them together for a 27″ desktop monitor that’s 7680×4320, and it will be on my wishlist!!

    • CuttinHobo
    • 8 years ago

    The really unfortunate part about this is that the standard 1366×768 resolution is here for the long term. So when these high-density panels hit mass production, we’re going to be stuck with laptops with 2-inch screens! D=

      • modulusshift
      • 8 years ago

      ROFL.
      But, seriously, I hear that TVs marketed as 720p are actually 1366×768. What the heck? You can’t display 720p content natively on that resolution. It’s not even 16×9!

        • zqw
        • 8 years ago

        It is 16:9. that res = 1024 x 1024, and has been around since the first plasmas.

        • BobbinThreadbare
        • 8 years ago

        1) That is 16:9
        2) You can easily display 720p content natively, just don’t use the extra 166 horizontal pixels and the extra 48 vertical ones
        3) This is usually what TVs do, look up overscan.

    • mcnabney
    • 8 years ago

    Wow, we’ve come a long way in 10 years. Same resolution as the IBM T221, a little smaller screen and a bit over a decade to make that slight improvement.

      • Parallax
      • 8 years ago

      The T221 is actually 2400 pixels tall (16:10), so it still beats this for # of pixels.

    • vargis14
    • 8 years ago

    I wonder if future displays with such high pixel densities will do running at lower resolutions instead of the native resolution. Its seems like resolutions are getting so high i wonder if they will be able to run at lower resolutions like the old CRTs, without making it look like garbage?

    I am sending this from my work where i am using the best CRT i ever owned. A Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB a 20″ view-able 22″ super flat CRT running at a strange 1920-1440 resolution @85hrtz. The reason being is i like to be able to run 1080p videos, or it would probably be at 1600-1200 . But the picture is fantastic after all these years. On top of that i petitioned to get new computers for us lowly toyota technicians. So they gave us 2 new dell optiplex 390s with sandy bridge based Pentium G630 dual core cpus @2.7ghz 🙂

    The thing that drives me nuts is they paid over 1300 for the pair.I recommended these gateway towers from microcenter. They would have only cost $680 for the pair with built in wifi, that the dells do not have, 6 gb ram in dual channel over the dells single 4gb stick, 1 terabyte HDs over the 250gb dell drives and I3 2120 3.3 ghz dual cores with hyperthreading. Each computer from Microcenter was $339 Instead of over $650 for each of the dells. Still happy we have new computers. But i was really looking forward to snagging a free 3.3ghz hyperthreading i3 2120 cpu and putting my HTPCs g530 celeron in with a swap out:)
    Ohh well

      • SPOOFE
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<] without making it look like garbage?[/quote<] Of course that's subjective, but think of it like this: If you have 4X the pixels for 1080 resolution, dropping down to 1080 would use 4 screen pixels for every one rendered pixel. This would look way less "like garbage" than trying to do, say, 1366x768 on a 1080 panel. As long as the reduction in resolution corresponds with an even, direct "so-many pixels to one" ratio, you won't get nearly as much of the blurring associated with an uneven reduction.

      • Chrispy_
      • 8 years ago

      They’ll have bought the Dells because they have an account with Dell. Not getting the absolute best price on a pair of Optiplexes is irrelevant to them because by putting, for example, $250K overall business towards Dell hardware a year, they’re saving 40% or more on the really expensive stuff like database servers and iSCSI SAN solutions.

      I order Dell stuff because they’re on-site warranty is pretty decent. When you have 500+ workstations to manage, having a Dell engineer turn up the next day with a replacement motherboard and doing an hour’s work for you is well worth the minor price increases.

      • smilingcrow
      • 8 years ago

      Optiplexes usually come with a 3 year next business day on-site warranty as standard which can be a deal maker for some businesses. The build quality is also better than your typical cheapo desktop. As for the HDD sizes 250GB is going to be more than ample for most business deployments; they tend not to encourage workers to copy vast multimedia libraries onto work computers.

      You can buy Optiplexes cheaply enough from the Dell Outlet; I picked up a 990 MT with an i5 3.1, 4GB, 500GB for £360 including the 3 year warranty.

    • Chrispy_
    • 8 years ago

    Wake me up when I can actually buy one!

    I’ve been reading about oled displays for over a decade and the only one you can really buy is Samsung’s SAMOLED 720p screen which seems to absolutely destroy batteries and mine (like a high-percentage of others) suffers from a mustard-coloured tinge along one side thanks to some known issue with the blue OLEDs.

    It has [b<]always[/b<] been the blue OLED's that have hindered OLED mass production and they're still obviously very difficult to get right!

      • bitcat70
      • 8 years ago

      I would say this one is available: [url<]http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/758921-REG/Sony_BVM_E250_BVM_E250_Trimaster_EL_OLED.html[/url<]

        • Chrispy_
        • 8 years ago

        hahah 🙂 Nice find, but I said “when [i<]I[/i<] can actually buy one." (hint: I'm not a billionaire quite yet!)

    • smilingcrow
    • 8 years ago

    What is it with panel manufactures? They seem to be suffering with bipolar design teams:

    Depressed = 1366×768 @ 15.6″
    Manic = 2560×1600 @ 6.1″

    Maybe they need to add some Lithium to their water coolers rather than just adding an oxide to their panels! More middle ground please people.

      • superjawes
      • 8 years ago

      Don’t blame them; it’s a balancing act. Even though we’re talking about 2560×1600 @ 6.1″, that makes no reference to pricing. Furthermore, it sounds like a new technology, so it will probably carry a huge premium for some time (if it’s even viable long-term).

      • pcgeek86
      • 8 years ago

      Seriously, I am disgusted with technology sometimes. LCD and OLED display resolutions are downright embarrassing.

      Dell just announced their new Ivy Bridge line-up, and they’re touting “2GB of RAM, integrated graphics, and 128GB SSDs.” Wow, what CENTURY do we live in?

        • continuum
        • 8 years ago

        Sigh. 2GB!??!?!!? >_<

        [quote<]13.5-inch OLED prototype has 3840x2160 pixels[/quote<]Now if only I could get a 22" or 24" monitor with that kind of resolution... hell I'd settle for 2560x1600 in a 22" or 24"!

        • CB5000
        • 8 years ago

        I use up 2GB of memory just booting up.

          • EtherealN
          • 8 years ago

          While I agree with your sentiment, do recall that unless you’ve manually turned those functions off, a bootup on windows will include pre-loading of all programs it has decided that you use. So what might look like a pure boot load might actually include browsers, mail programs, related plugins, office, steam, a couple games you play often etcetera etcetera.

          • Meadows
          • 8 years ago

          Unlike EtherealN, I’m not sure if it’s sarcasm.

        • smilingcrow
        • 8 years ago

        Don’t you mean which decade? A 128GB SSD and 2GB of RAM would have been pretty impressive in 1999.

      • odizzido
      • 8 years ago

      rofl hahaha so true. Especially of laptops.

      • Farting Bob
      • 8 years ago

      All these new high res screens we’ve seen on phones and tablets are very difficult to scale up to 24″+. Imagine Nvidia saying “we’ve mastered this chip with 3.4bn transistors, so now we are going to use the same design but its going to have 30 billion transistors! The yields would be horrible and the price would be more than a decent car to buy one.

      Increased resolution (DPI) is much easier on smaller screens.

        • willmore
        • 8 years ago

        I’ll take issue with that. Semiconductors are produced by optically (well, for varying definitions of ‘optical’) processes. LCDs are made with a process that is more like printing. The scaling of the processes are completely different. Or did you notice that they can make 80″ LCDs, but semiconductors don’t quite get that big?

        • Parallax
        • 8 years ago

        Perhaps it’s not trivial to scale to larger sizes, but the T221 LCD had a greater number of pixels in a 22″ size over 10 years ago. It’s not scalability that’s the problem.

          • Haserath
          • 8 years ago

          The T221 also started out at $18 grand.

          Unless you skimp on transportation, I don’t think you’ll be getting one of those anytime soon.

    • willmore
    • 8 years ago

    Pretty….. oh, so pretty.

    • albundy
    • 8 years ago

    so since its amorphous, will it be able to roll up or fold up?

      • brute
      • 8 years ago

      Let me re-read that for you.

      “The tech adds a crystalline structure to an oxide semiconductor that would otherwise be amorphous.”

        • Alexko
        • 8 years ago

        Plus, glass is amorphous; good luck folding it up.

          • Grigory
          • 8 years ago

          Oh, you can fold up glass. If you have the patience. And the longevity. 😀

            • Wirko
            • 8 years ago

            Lacking the longevity, we can still fold copper wires, which are crystalline.

        • albundy
        • 8 years ago

        wow, sarcasm really doesn’t get pas you, huh.

          • brute
          • 8 years ago

          Nope. Sarcasm to me is like Gandalf to the Balrog.

          Unless you got a flamin whip, you ain’t passin, bruh.

      • Meadows
      • 8 years ago

      Probably, if you heat it up, and try for a long time. Like glass.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This