New LG OLED TV is 3/16" Thick

[MillCreek]

An insightful analysis of 3D movies:  http://theoatmeal.com/blog/3d_movies

[mtnbkr]

And FTR, Enterprise-D (Picard's ship from the Next Generation series, the one crashed by Troi in Generations) only had ONE bathroom on the whole ship - right by the Captain's Ready Room, IIRC.

Better hope the ship's kitchen staff doesn't have an off day or use bad ingredients.

Chris

[MechAg94]

I shopped for an LED TV a year or two ago.  I remember being a bit ticked off that few people had just a good large screen TV with good resolution and frame rate.  Most of them had to have 3D or some other options added to them to increase the price another $1000.  I guess that won't change though.

[AJ Dual]

Edit, because I was stupid and pressed Post before typing a response... 

Beaming a redshirt  , or a large hunk of rock, into low orbit would not be quite that impressive.  A photon torpedo, with a yield of about 67 megatons, utilizes 1.5kg of antimatter (presumably reacting with the torpedo casing and other materials for 3kg of M-AM). A 75kg redshirt (or rock) would produce, at most, 25x more boom, and probably considerably less than that IMO.

A quantum torpedo, such as those fired by the Enterprise-E against the Borg Cube in First Contact, was supposed to utilize zero-point energy to produce a "dialable" yield up to 200 megatons. You want true planet-killing capability, you use something like a Genesis device, or use the ship's probes and/or torpedoes to destabilize the local star.

And FTR, Enterprise-D (Picard's ship from the Next Generation series, the one crashed by Troi in Generations) only had ONE bathroom on the whole ship - right by the Captain's Ready Room, IIRC.

Yeah, you're right. Matter conversion isn't all that, unless you've got lots of mass, runaway quantum singularity maybe. A "Hawking Bomb"...

The Chixiculub impactor was an estimated 4.0×10^23 Joules or about 95 Teratons.

So, fight with asteroids instead.

[TommyGunn]

Edit, because I was stupid and pressed Post before typing a response... 

Beaming a redshirt  , or a large hunk of rock, into low orbit would not be quite that impressive.  A photon torpedo, with a yield of about 67 megatons, utilizes 1.5kg of antimatter (presumably reacting with the torpedo casing and other materials for 3kg of M-AM). A 75kg redshirt (or rock) would produce, at most, 25x more boom, and probably considerably less than that IMO.

A quantum torpedo, such as those fired by the Enterprise-E against the Borg Cube in First Contact, was supposed to utilize zero-point energy to produce a "dialable" yield up to 200 megatons. You want true planet-killing capability, you use something like a Genesis device, or use the ship's probes and/or torpedoes to destabilize the local star.

And FTR, Enterprise-D (Picard's ship from the Next Generation series, the one crashed by Troi in Generations) only had ONE bathroom on the whole ship - right by the Captain's Ready Room, IIRC.

The original series didn't even touch the subject.    And James T. Kirk didn't even have the ready room.  He didn't need one; he was ALWAYS ready.

[Lee]

I love it when new technology comes along....I'll be able to buy the old (but new to me) technology for a song.  I'm really surprised that all of the TV manufactures haven't come out with TV's that require unending software updates.

[Ben]

I'm really surprised that all of the TV manufactures haven't come out with TV's that require unending software updates.

Quiet you. Don't give them any ideas.

[CNYCacher]

This is what I think I know based on some research i did lately.

LCD Screens require a backlight because the LCD panel itself merely becomes translucent when activating.  Each pixel is made of three tiny liquid crystal apertures with a different color filter on each, red green and blue.  It's important to note that If you have an LCD screen powered on and displaying a black image, the backlight is still lit at full power, but the LCD is blocking the light.  It doesn't do a perfect job of blocking the light though, which is why the best black an LCD can do is really a sort of dark grey.

The backlight in an LCD screen is most commonly florescent tubes.

Enter "LED" screens:  Is each pixel made of tiny LED's?  No.  They are standard old LCD screens which are backlit with LEDs instead of florescents. Kind of a lie in my opinion.

Even more confusing is the fact that some LCD displays are backlit with OLED sheets.  An OLED isn't really what is being displayed in this article, but I'll get to that.  OLED sheets used as LCD backlights (and sold as "LED" displays are a large sheet applied to the back of the LCD.  When you apply power, the entire thing lights up evenly.

The display in the article is, I believe, an AMOLED display.  It stands for Active Matrix OLED.  It is an OLED sheet but it is made up of millions of individually-addressable different-color LEDs, arrranged into pixel groups with n different-colored LEDs per pixel.  This display uses no LCD layer, and generates its own light.  It's completely different from what has been in the past referred to as "LED" or even sometimes "OLED" displays, which were in reality LED or OLED-backlit LCD displays.

For the reasons just noted, when an AMOLED screen makes a black pixel, it's truly black, because the LEDs in that pixel are simply powered off. An LCD display (even LED-backlit LCD displays) make black pixels by blocking most of the backlight. It is also using almost no power when displaying a black image.  LEDs can switch intensity instantly, compared to the relatively slow LCD which is why they are high-speed. They are also infinitely-adjustable for intensity, which is why (combined with true-black capability) they have infinite contrast ratios

AMOLED screens are only recently being used in small-screen displays.  To see one this large is truly impressive. My phone has one, but its only 4.5 inches.  It makes a super-bright, very clear display which is viewable at extreme angles without fading.  It generally illicits a "Whoah!" response from people who see it for the first time.  I am not aware of any tablets which use AMOLED screens yet, but I am sure they are coming.

[Brad Johnson]

The display in the article is, I believe, an AMOLED display.  It stands for Active Matrix OLED.  It is an OLED sheet but it is made up of millions of individually-addressable different-color LEDs, arrranged into pixel groups with n different-colored LEDs per pixel.  This display uses no LCD layer, and generates its own light.  It's completely different from what has been in the past referred to as "LED" or even sometimes "OLED" displays, which were in reality LED or OLED-backlit LCD displays.

One distinction... the term OLED is a catch-all kinda like the terms metal or plastic, used to denote a general class of items.  OLEDS are either passive matrix (PMOLED) or active matrix (AMOLED).  The difference is in how the image is resolved and how the pixel states are maintained.  PMOLEDs are cheap and easy to mfg, but limited in size and resolution.  AMOLEDs are more expensive and complex to mfg, but are virtually unlimited in size and resolution. 

Here's apretty good summary.

http://www.oled-info.com/pmoled-vs-amoled-whats-difference


My Google-fu resulted in this, too...

With Passive-Matrix OLEDs, the display is controlled by switching on rows and columns. When you turn on row number x and column number y, the pixel at the intersection is lit - and emits light. Each time you can choose just one pixel to light. So you have to turn these on and off very quickly. You do so in a certain sequence, and create the desired image. This is somewhat like the interlace-system used in old CRTs, but the control is done pixel-by-pixel.

PMOLEDs are very easy and cheap to build, but they are limited to small sizes (up to 3", typically). The image displaying is a bit complicated (because of the row/column method). Also the power consumption is not as good as AMOLEDs.

AMOLEDs have a different driver electronics - each pixel is controlled directly. AMOLEDs are more expensive, and much more difficult to create, but can be used for larger displays and are very power efficient.

Brad

[CNYCacher]

One distinction... the term OLED is a catch-all kinda like the terms metal or plastic, used to denote a general class of items.  OLEDS are either passive matrix (PMOLED) or active matrix (AMOLED).  The difference is in how the image is resolved and how the pixel states are maintained.  PMOLEDs are cheap and easy to mfg, but limited in size and resolution.  AMOLEDs are more expensive and complex to mfg, but are virtually unlimited in size and resolution. 

I didn't know about PMOLEDS, just AMOLED and your standard OLED sheet.  We used to use them in displays when I built custom product displays.  Imagine something resembling a laminated piece of paper, with 3 power leads coming off the corner and when you give it power the entire thing emits an even light.  I assume something like that is what they use in the LED-lit LCD screens.  An OLED without any kind of M, just a paper-thin sheet of light.

[Brad Johnson]

I should clarify that I was talking about OLED-base video displays.  As you rightly pointed out you can have an OLED illumination system which is just that, a plain old OLED sheet without having to deal with the PMOLED or AMOLED distinctions.

Brad