10 more years and oled might actual be affordable? how long has it been since it was first announced. I will wating for CRT response times and "blacks blacker then black"

I'm sorry guys but I just can't see why this monitor costs 5 grand, even with all the manufacturing, r&d and other costs taken into account. And even tho not exactly apples to apples, why does it cost almost 50% more than some LG 55" OLED 4K TV models?

Economies of scale.

1. this is WRGB or RGB ? 2. what brightness (cd/m2) level is there ? 3. how many warranty producer give ? I'm not interested to buy ofcorse. It's more for proffesional usage than home usage anyway. Also todays TV's have much more offer to me personally. But something not fit here - Proffesional screen with questionabnle durability... Today OLED's have 2 yrs warranty usually. Graphic workstation (if work) 10 hours per day can get 11 000 operating hours in 3 years. After that time I bet degradation level will be horible especially if that just RGB not WRGB. Pixel reaction time 0.1ms - marketing blabla Maybe reaction time pixel itself IT IS. But not whole matrix! 😀 I read that fastest OLED TV's have above 5ms response time. OLED's need very strategically power pixels for operate - very stable power and nice menagment of it, to reduce wear-off, and even burns. Both WRGB and RGB OLED's are usually oversaturated, and have some other small issiuess. In that price range I like expect something more ballanced mby.

Why is this tech in Monitors and TV so much more expensive than them AMOLED in phones? Isn't it the same thing?

16/9 is quite bad to me to work, I'll wait for a 5k in 16/10.

Why is this tech in Monitors and TV so much more expensive than them AMOLED in phones? Isn't it the same thing?

AMOLED just other version, (improved) version OLED, patented by Sony not LG. AMOLED was more perfected at start than normall OLED. Where "AM" mean Active Matrix. Not like implementing static memmory and CMOS for controling subpixels and overvoltage level. For better durability, and more power efficient in mobile use.6Someone may correct me if im wrong. LG also improve their OLED's. But its - LG they may sell older tech aswell. On cheaper units for just 5000$ 😀 Thats why im asking if DELL above have WRGB. They like promote their OLED and sell it to partners alot. Right now its almost duopol. And they put millions $ on it without cover! as far...

Are they really 0.1 ms? Like virtually no motion blur? I wait for the day we can have great colkrs without motion blur

Are they really 0.1 ms? Like virtually no motion blur? I wait for the day we can have great colkrs without motion blur

Depends http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/oled-motion-blur/

What's the input lag?

I'm off to sell my arms and legs for this!!!

Why is this tech in Monitors and TV so much more expensive than them AMOLED in phones? Isn't it the same thing?

Much of the price is probably just a premium they charge just because they can. But no it's not exactly the same thing. A key point is that on cell phones they use a pentile pattern which essentially means the subpixels are shared in a way, with other pixel groupings, that it reduces the amount of subpixels by 1/3rd by not being a standard RGB array. This results in a grainy pattern being visible if the resolution is not extremely high. That and the resolution isn't exactly what they're advertising, you're not going to get the same clarity, the same spacial resolution from a pentile screen. For example back when flagship phones were 720p on the 4.65" Galaxy Nexus you could clearly see the grain pattern on flat colours and pretty much anything grey despite it being such a supposedly high resolution on a tiny screen. They had every excuse in the book for doing this, often blaming the lifespan of blue subpixels. Nothing more than an excuse. Super AMOLED+, with the plus being important, is the type (branding that Samsung uses) that doesn't use a pentile pattern. The real reason of course is that they can more easily shove "high resolutions" into small areas for a much lower cost by using pentile patterns. At least I'm assuming on monitors/TVs they wouldn't stoop so low as to cut out 1/3rd the subpixels. Pentile sucks, on a 1080p 5.1" screen (Galaxy S5) I can still see grain patterns on flat colours. Take look at the pentile patterns on an S5 (left) and S4 (right): [spoiler]http://i-cdn.phonearena.com/images/articles/117012-image/s5-screen-41-horz.jpg[/spoiler]

They had every excuse in the book for doing this, often blaming the lifespan of blue subpixels. Nothing more than an excuse. I should also note that the green subpixels used in these pentile screens are very tiny, since human colour receptors are particularly sensitive to green anyway. Another way for them to save money.

I disagree Samsung went through several iterations of screen patterning which would have cost more to engineer than the money saving from literally nothing. It's not like there are less sub-pixels, they are just skewed towards different colors and arranged differently. It didn't effect the manufacturing cost at all aside from increasing it, as they had to retool the fabrication process. The main reason why they went with pentile isn't the lifespan of blue sub-pixels (this was a factor but not the main one) but the wavelength/power ratio of blue subpixel. The shorter the wavelength the more power is required to power the pixel at a given brightness. At 50% APL an AMOLED screen is now close to 40% more efficient than LCD and that's only possible because of Pentile. But yeah, blue life span is also a problem as they decay the color slowly shifts. Which is why earlier panels with lower lifespans were often intentionally calibrated with a slightly higher whitepoint (7000K) so that as the blue subpixels died the white point would move slowly towards 6500K. Overall the trade is most definitely worth it. If they didn't AMOLED phones would have suffered from significantly worse battery life and horribly calibrated screens within a few years of life. And with QHD and inevitably 4K, the negatives of the lower sub-pixel resolution are practically non-existent. That being said in a monitor where pixel density will matter more and power less, it may make more sense to go the traditional route until resolutions are high enough for it to not matter again.

It's not like there are less sub-pixels

That's exactly what it means, read what I wrote, it uses 1/3rd less than what an RGB array would. Why do you think the pattern ends up showing grain?

Overall the trade is most definitely worth it.

That grainy pattern on my "1080p" 5 inch screen says otherwise. That's beyond retarded. I shouldn't be able to see Samsung's cheapassery when holding the phone 2-3 feet from face on something that they call 1080p. 1080p on a 23" monitor while sitting 3-4 feet away never bothered me, but at that same resolution with a pentile pattern from roughly the same distance on such tiny screen it's an eye sore on any flat colour. What a joke, an absolute joke. If they were so concerned about battery life they wouldn't be shoving 720p/1080p/1440p onto such tiny surfaces at any given point in time. They're concerned with giving you a big number making the specs seem more impressive while saving every cent they can. It doesn't matter nearly as much as you'd think for power savings that it has a third less subpixels, 1440p still means the GPU renders an image of that resolution, draining the crap out of the battery compared to sticking with sane resolutions for a 5" device. Still going to insist this is all about battery life? There's people within Samsung who's entire job is to order different departments what to do to save money. That's not unusual, most large companies have a group of people who's sole job is that.

Just to confirm: this 0.1ms response time, it's usually 8+, isn't it?

Yes, OLED panels have almost 0 response time. Aside from the burn-in issue they are basically the next step after LCD. If the burn-in is eliminated I'm very confident that they will quickly replace LCDs.

Why is this tech in Monitors and TV so much more expensive than them AMOLED in phones? Isn't it the same thing?

It's the same thing but the panels are far bigger. A 4k 5.5" phone screen is far cheaper to manufacture than a 4k 30" screen. This is why OLED screens on our phones seem to not affect the price. Of course, there's also the fact that they capitalize on exclusivity. OLED TVs are expensive like sh!t and not because they are very expensive to manufacture, but because there's a monopoly (actually duopoly) on OLED panels, Samsung and LG are the only ones with access to the technology I believe. And if I remember right Samsung are licensing the technology to LG. I'm quite confident that OLED panels will become much cheaper in the near future. It's simply superior to LCD in almost every possible way.

AMOLED just other version, (improved) version OLED, patented by Sony not LG. AMOLED was more perfected at start than normall OLED. Where "AM" mean Active Matrix.

I believe you mean Samsung? I thought they own the AMOLED patents.

That's exactly what it means, read what I wrote, it uses 1/3rd less than what an RGB array would. Why do you think the pattern ends up showing grain? That grainy pattern on my "1080p" 5 inch screen says otherwise. That's beyond retarded. I shouldn't be able to see Samsung's cheapassery when holding the phone 2-3 feet from face on something that they call 1080p. 1080p on a 23" monitor while sitting 3-4 feet away never bothered me, but the that same resolution with a pentile pattern from roughly the same distance on such tiny screen is an eye sore. What a joke, an absolute joke.

The pattern shows grain because the sub-pixel resolution is lower towards certain colors, notably ones with blue/red but it's also higher towards greens. It depends on the image. I don't have a Galaxy S5, so I can't comment on what your seeing. But I have a Nexus 6P that has a QHD AMOLED screen (same one that's in the Note 5 supposedly). I do notice a tiny slight bit of grain in solid colors, especially red/blue (which makes sense because that's where they reduced sub-pixel count) but it's not nearly enough to bother me. The screen quality overall is still vastly superior to my Nexus 5's LCD and my One Plus One. The only category I would knock it on is maximum brightness, it only gets to about ~315nits. Regardless, the trade is a significant decrease in power consumption and an increase in screen longevity. I don't hear a massive outcry from Samsung owners about grainy screens, so I don't think its an issue.

The pattern shows grain because the sub-pixel resolution is lower towards certain colors, notably ones with blue/red but it's also higher towards greens. It depends on the image.

That colour depends on the spot on the pattern. The lower subpixel resolution is due to sharing subpixels because that pattern is meant to cover up the lack of the same amount of subpixels RGB has. That's the entire point of it.

I don't have a Galaxy S5, so I can't comment on what your seeing. But I have a Nexus 6P that has a QHD AMOLED screen (same one that's in the Note 5 supposedly). I do notice a tiny slight bit of grain in solid colors, especially red/blue (which makes sense because that's where they reduced sub-pixel count) but it's not nearly enough to bother me. The screen quality overall is still vastly superior to my Nexus 5's LCD and my One Plus One. The only category I would knock it on is maximum brightness, it only gets to about ~315nits. Regardless, the trade is a significant decrease in power consumption and an increase in screen longevity. I don't hear a massive outcry from Samsung owners about grainy screens, so I don't think its an issue.

If you can see grain of flat colours on something that's 2560x1440, it shouldn't be hard to imagine why I find the grain annoying at 1920x1080. Most people don't even notice dead pixels. They certainly aren't going to complain about grain patterns. If Samsung really wanted to save power they'd stick with 1080p. Most people can't even tell the difference, grain and all. But they need to advertise those big specs. If you're wondering why I would get an S5 if I have this much of a problem with Samsung's pentile screens. It's for two reasons, first I ended up having a lot of credit with my service provider making it cheaper to buy than a Nexus 5 (and it was the one and only flagship phone they offered). Secondly... I never imagined that I could see grain on a 5.1" 1080p screen. I thought that resolution is so insanely high for that size that there would be no way I could see the subpixels regardless of the pattern.

I don't know what you guys are on about, I see no grain pattern on my S5? Which colors offend the most, Neo?

I don't know what you guys are on about, I see no grain pattern on my S5? Which colors offend the most, Neo?

If you look at like a solid image of blue or red, you can see a faint grain to it. I think light grey is slightly noticeable too. You can see it better if you compare it to an LCD panel of the same image. That being said, as you can see it's barely noticeable. In fact, according to DisplayMate, you can only resolve noticeable differences r/b subpixel at sub 11 inches with 20/20 vision, green is sub 8 inches and that's at FHD/5 inches. With QHD, the screen on my phone, I literally have to hold it like 4 inches from my eye and even then it's barely noticeable. And with that change, that slight barely noticeable grain in certain colors, came nearly a 30% decrease in power consumption. I'll take the power decrease any day of the week.

If you look at like a solid image of blue or red, you can see a faint grain to it. I think light grey is slightly noticeable too. You can see it better if you compare it to an LCD panel of the same image. That being said, as you can see it's barely noticeable. In fact, according to DisplayMate, you can only resolve noticeable differences r/b subpixel at sub 11 inches with 20/20 vision, green is sub 8 inches and that's at FHD/5 inches. With QHD, the screen on my phone, I literally have to hold it like 4 inches from my eye and even then it's barely noticeable. And with that change, that slight barely noticeable grain in certain colors, came nearly a 30% decrease in power consumption. I'll take the power decrease any day of the week.

Ooh you mean that pattern you notice when watching a solid color and moving the screen slightly? I honestly thought that's an optical illusion because the color is so perfect. It's hardly noticeable, I really had to look for it and I need to stay quite far away from the screen else I won't notice it. I only notice it with reds, not blues probably because I have a certain dyschromatopsia which prevents me from seeing blue nuances and details properly. However one thing I really dislike about this screen is the ghosting when set at very low brightness settings. For example when having a screen 50/50 black/white (upper side black, lower side white) and I scroll down I see a purple trail. Anyone else?

I don't know what you guys are on about, I see no grain pattern on my S5? Which colors offend the most, Neo?

It's only noticeable on flat colours. To me yellows, reds, and greys stick out the most and greens the least. On yellow I see a pattern from the red subpixels. Green does leave a pattern but barely noticeable and it looks more like blanks or areas of weaker green rather than an easily seen pattern.

according to DisplayMate, you can only resolve noticeable differences r/b subpixel at sub 11 inches with 20/20 vision, green is sub 8 inches and that's at FHD/5 inches.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a lot of people have better than 20/20 vision at least while young.