The eye-popping detail of 4K resolution may be hogging headlines due to a recent renaming to “Ultra HD,” but another TV technology also has the potential to upend the status quo – and both will be dueling for your dollars in 2013. OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) TVs made a major showing at CES earlier this year, but engineers have struggled to take the tech – which works well on smaller mobile screens – and implement it at the kinds of sizes that often inhabit people’s living rooms or home theaters. At CES, both Samsung and LG had OLED TVs to show off, albeit with onlookers held back at a healthy distance. But LG later showcased its fully assembled, 55-inch OLED TV prototype in Monaco, allowing us to land hands all over it – and it knocked our socks clean off.
Now, before we could even get them back on again, comes a report from NPD DisplaySearch indicating manufacturers plan to commercialize OLED technology before the end of the year. We knew that consumer-ready OLED tech was on its way, but we weren’t confident we’d see it before it was time to sing “Auld Lang Syne.” Before you get too jazzed, keep in mind that only about 500 units will ship before 2013, and virtually all of them will be used for retail demonstrations. Furthermore, manufacturers are only estimating about 3 percent market penetration by 2016.
This a quite the blip for OLED, considering that it had been flying firmly under the radar. Of late, the national media’s coverage of TV tech has been devoted to the 4K versus Ultra HD naming controversy, and now that we’re finally hearing about OLED again, we have a plethora of questions: Can it challenge Ultra HD? Will we see the prices over $10,000 that have been bandied about come back down to Earth a bit?
The question that really has our circuits buzzing, however, is whether or not we’ll see an Ultra HD OLED display. Is the world even ready for that? It would be like the television equivalent of crossing the streams. Before we get too excited, let’s put the unlikely hypotheticals aside for a bit and get back to the facts.
Here’s how we see it: Right now, Ultra HD just isn’t ready for prime time, but it would seem that OLED is. And even if Ultra HD were a bit more practical, OLED – in our estimation – is a giant step up visually from every other TV tech out there. Its contrast capabilities are out of this universe, and its black levels simply unparalleled; pure and simple, it’s a visual tour de force. Combine that with the ultra-ultra-thin 1mm bezel on the 55-inch LG model we saw, and you get deeply immersive optical effects that just aren’t possible on any other TV. Perhaps this recent news signals a need for the industry to shift gears in its reporting on the future of television.
Why isn’t Ultra HD ready for prime time? Well, the native content isn’t ready to be delivered at the consumer level yet, and there are plenty of indications that it won’t be for some time. According to a report by Advanced Television, DirecTV is all-in on the format, but admits it won’t be viable until around 2016. In other words, some of the first real Ultra HD broadcast content we see could conceivably be the states lighting up red or blue in the next US presidential election. In the case of OLED, however, we have a revolutionary way of delivering existing content. And it’s breathtaking in plain-old, boring 1080p HD.
One thing Ultra HD does have going for it, however, is that it’s built for gargantuan sizes, while OLED is still struggling to reach standard sizes. Still, though man-cave denizens get giddier as TVs grow larger, we have to ask ourselves: How big is too big? Too much of a good thing is always possible, and mammoth screens can only expand so far before becoming obtrusive and dominating whatever room they happen to be in. Size matters, but to a point.
To be honest, what we’re anticipating here is a good old fashioned format war. It’s exciting, the competition drives innovation, and, well, it gives us something to gab about. But, if that kind of conflict does come to fruition, both the industry and the consumer also run the risk of losing. The HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray debacle in its day stymied consumer adoption, and as a result, Blu-ray has had a tough fight finding its way into consumer’s living rooms. If we had to place a bet, though, our money just might be on OLED.
None…they are both bigger than my wallet right now.
Bad title as these two technologies do not directly compete. With that being said, I see your point. All things being equal, if you had money to spend on one TYPE of TV technology, where would it go: 4K or OLED?
Are there not OLED panel’s that support Ultra HD?
The distance from the screen and screen size needed (and quality of content) to make 4K useful is beyond most people. It’s just a scam to ‘sell the next bigger, newer thing’ to people who are suckers for it.
For most people, the size of a potential 4K screen is 100% worthless. This has already been proven in the 720P vs. 1080P arguments years ago. Only front projector owners really see much, in any, difference. And all the other elements of a quality picture end up mattering FAR more.
Which leads too…OLED.
OLED is actually a genuine level of quality in contrast, off-axis view angles, deep saturation, etc. for any one at any screen size and distance. It’s easily more important than the gimmick of 4K.
But on top of this goofy display ‘spec war’, I recall Sony showing a so-called ‘Crystal LED’ set that’s effectively similar to an OLED display, so they’ll probably just end up making a flagship set that’s C-LED and 4K -for an insane price that’s only for promotion and a few rich chumps.
In the ‘real world’ of display size and couch distance, high contrast, bright/rich color, in artifact-free 1080P looks pretty much perfect.
The real goal I think should be a roll-down, self-illuminated projector screen that’s affordable for basically flawless home theater-for-all.
i was content to let this sit but then I come across these 2 articles I thought I’d share.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/11/sony-promises-free-4k-theatrical-films-for-4k-tv-buyers/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+arstechnica%2Findex+%28Ars+Technica+-+All+content%29 and http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/oled-displays-samsung-sues-lg-display-patent/
ok so if these companies care so much about the other product why do they continually push forward w/ their respected products (4k for sony and oled for samsung)? you can say to the contrary all you want @caleb but what they push is what they push, i don’t hear shit from sony about oled nor do i hear shit from samsung about 4k. i don’t doubt both companies are looking into the others’ technology but as it stands sony cares more for 4k and samsung more for oled. the article you mention has them partnering up, sony isn’t partnering up for 4k nor is samsung partnering up for oled. idk man
I get that 4K resolution and OLED panel technology aren’t at odds in theory, but in reality, you can’t get both of them together in a TV yet. Until you can, it’s worth asking which is more worth your consumer dollars, similar to the way three years ago, you might have struggled with choosing to buy a smart TV or 3D TV. They aren’t mutually exclusive, but sometimes you’re forced to choose. Before the El Camino and Ranchero, we actually had to choose between pickups and cars. Dark days.
What are you saying? Isn’t 4K a resolution and OLED a panel? What exactly is the competition?
Hey guys:,
Yes, 4K is a resolution and OLED is a type of display technology. The point is: at this time (and likely for at least another couple of years), the two will compete for consumer dollars. You can have one or the other but not both in the same TV.
The allure of 4K is its higher pixel density and resolution. 4K TVs displaying upconverted 1080p content look better than 1080p sets, so a lack of native 4K content may not be a deal breaker for early adopters seeking to get the best TV tech available, no matter the cost. With all of that said, 4K TVs are currently only available in LCD panels with LED backlighting and, as such, suffer from motion blur, light bleeding and screen uniformity issues. Getting great contrast, black levels and shadow detail is also challenging.
On the other hand, OLED is appealing because it is a superior display. It doesn’t suffer from any of the light bleeding or uniformity problems and its contrast, black levels and shadow detail are stunning.
The problem is you can’t have both. You can have amazing resolution, but will have to put up with LCD panel limitations. Or, you can have a stunning display that isn’t capable of a resolution greater than 1080p (for now). Each is gorgeous in its own way — we’re talking about two distinctly different flavors of awesome.
The question early adopters for whom price is no object now face is: Which of those two different flavors of TV awesomeness would I rather have? And because that is a legitimate question, it places the two (yes, a resolution and a display type) into competition with each other for consumer dollars.
If I had the money and had to decide whether I would get, say, A Hisense 58-inch 4K TV or an LG or Samsung 55-inch OLED TV, I would have a tough time making that decision.
And you can bet that the decision I make has ramifications. Even if my money goes to the same manufacturer, whether the money came from an OLED sale or a 4K sale will help steer that manufacturers decisions. Will it more aggressively invest in manufacturing infrastructure that makes OLED panels less expensive to produce and more available/affordable to the public ,or will it pour that effort into 4K instead? Which technology is going to trickle down to consumers of more average means earlier?
I DESPISE TECHNOLOGY ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO CHOSING TECHNOLOGY A or TECHNOLOGY B.
1. I poured over the specs and chose 8 track tape over cassette because of its higher S/N and resolution
2. I chose Sony Beta over VHS because Beta tested out to be superior to VHS in every measure.
3. I looked at HDTV and Blu-Ray and went with Toshiba’s HDTV player because ‘that was the direction the market was headed’.
4. THREE SELECTIONS; THREE TECHNOLOGICAL ‘DEAD-ENDS’
5. TWO MEN ENTER; ONE MAN LEAVES!!! Screw 4K v. OLED. I want a 100′ TV and I will only select the TV from the remaining MARKET LEADER, not necessarily the better software. I H-A-T-E choosing wrong AGAIN!!!
We will not be won over by a tv that cost almost 3/4′s of one persons yearly income. Isn’t oled a panel technology and 4k a resolution? You are just putting them together cause the price is close? Most companies still charge for “hd” programming which is 1080, so this stuff isn’t even really feasible yet for all of us!! Most people still watch sd tv!!! This article is a waste of resources.
lol that’s what I was thinking, for the vast majority of us this article was completely worthless. no offense to the writer, I just wasted my own time is all. and I totally get what you’re saying about steering manufacturers decisions but honestly, those decisions have already been made. Sony is committed to 4K, while Samsung is invested in OLED. Samsung will push for bigger OLED screens to cater to 4K when the content, and that’s the most important part, becomes available. I’d buy an OLED in a heartbeat personally, just to throw that in there. But homie below is also right, my wallet is small also.
I can see where you’re coming from, El Profeto, but the decisions haven’t been made as you suggest. Sony hasn’t picked 4K over OLED. Though it has struggled with OLED, its recently announced partnership with Panasonic (http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/sony-and-panasonic-sign-oled-tv-partnership-agreement-will-face-ongoing-korean-threat-together/) is a signal that it isn’t giving up on the technology. Sony doesn’t want to be left out of the OLED game if/when the technology takes off. Also, Samsung has as much stake in 4K TV as it does in OLED (as does LG) Plus, you can add in the fact that the Japanese electronics manufacturers are in the middle of a meltdown, which reinforces the point that consumers will have influence on their future actions.
I think the article was intended to provoke the question: which technology would you chose to buy, since you can’t have both in the same TV right now? It’s interesting that nobody has chosen to entertain that question, if only hypothetically. Maybe that is because of the sky-high pricing. The Pioneer Kuro Elite’s popularity proves that if you give wealthy folks a good reason, they will pull big $$$ out of their pockets for it. Does either 4K or OLED have that kind of appeal?
I don’t mind dropping $10K on an HDTV television PROVIDING I am getting VALUE on my dollars spent. What I hate about MARKETING in America is the deceitful way that Companies ‘pimp their rides’. Remember “Shell Gasolines are SUPERIOR to all other brands because ‘you’ll go farther with PLATFORMATE ?!!! What Shell didn’t tell us is that ALL GASOLINES HAVE PLATFORMATE in their gasoline—like we are all too stupid to notice that?!!
My dad has a stone cold Ancient Mitsubitshi 73732 73″DPL (rear projection) TV (240hz chip) which does everything that is asked of it. I looked at the Sharp 80′ (240hz) and I didn’t like it as well as the Mitsubishi (of course the Mitzi was calibrated & the Sharp wasnt).
Me? I want a HDTV about 145 inches—I want that feeling where my peripheral vision is enveloped in the story as it would me seated 5th row center. I want 3D b-u-t I don’t want to wear the dorkey glasses!!! I want stunning resolution and will trade GIMMICKS to achieve that.
Television isn’t even broadcasted in 1080p yet. It’s mostly in 720p. Why are we even talking about 4k?