Konka announce MicroLED Smart Watch and Sony teases a possible MicroLED display as well

Breaking news in the gaming monitor industry! Press releases, new monitors, rumors. IPS, OLED, 144Hz, G-SYNC, Ultrawides, etc. Submit news you see online!
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
Posts: 11647
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44
Location: Toronto / Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Konka announce MicroLED Smart Watch and Sony teases a possible MicroLED display as well

Post by Chief Blur Buster » 23 Dec 2020, 13:23

Futuretech wrote:
23 Dec 2020, 00:23
I'm sure you know this seeing as your in a higher position than most on said subjects. But it has been tested in the more recent Micro-LED testings of transistor speed changes in some cases surpassing a little over 1:Ghz in speed basically nanosecond blur. OLED has seen some from a few years ago reaching about 100,000:Hz speeds even though current OLED probably isn't actuating near that.
You are conflating single-pixel refresh with the need for refreshing millions of pixels.

A single-pixel OLED, yes.

But a high definition OLED can't be easily/cheaply driven that fast.

It is typically an incorrect assumption that OLEDs can do any refresh rate at any resolution needs to be nuanced by the law-of-physics limitations in driver electronics.

In a row-and-column addressing metaphor, refreshing electronics is in a huge hurry. It's easy to kick one soccer ball at a time, but kicking millions of soccer balls (initiating transistors) simultaneously in less than 1/1000sec is a very tall order. It is easy to accidentally make false assumptions about the refresh rate of a single-pixel LED display versus a multimillion-pixel.
Futuretech wrote:
23 Dec 2020, 00:23
Correct? is that what you mean by tough?
No.

Not all pixels are refreshed in parallel

Refresh electronics can only focus on a few pixels at a time

Now, 3840x2160 is 8,294,400 pixels. Multiply by 3 to have R,G,B subpixels.
3840 x 2160 x 3 = 24,833,200 subpixels.

Imagine babysitting 24,833,200 children (the number of subpixels of a 3-pixel-per-channel 4K display), instead of babysitting 1 children.

Or imagine, trying to traffic-control 24,833,200 cars/trucks/airplanes, instead of just 1 car/truck/airplane.

You could build 24,833,200 separate chips into a monitor to drive each pixel independently of each other, but a monitor would cost billions of dollars, and you would need 24,833,200 separate wires (like 24,833,200 power outlets for 24,833,200 lightbulbs with 23,833,200 separate wall switches!!!) -- a mathematical impossibility.

So, what monitors do is they use a grid of wires, row-colunn addressing. (The "Active Matrix" comes from this). You activate 2 wires at a time to control a pixel. But that means you can only refresh 1 pixel at a time.

Now, trying to refresh 24,833,200 pixels, ONE PIXEL AT A TIME, means at 60 Hz you can only refresh 1/60th of 1/24833200th of a second = You Only Have 0.67 Nanoseconds To Refresh Each Sub Pixel!!!!!!! Imagine trying to send a pulse to a distant transistor over a long micrometers-width microwire (the active matrix grid), ultra-briefly, to the transistor gate. It's like trying to send a telegraph over a 2000+ mile telegraph cable over the the transatlantic ocean in year 1858 -- almost an impossibility (they tried several times, and succeeded only in 1866). A computer chip only needs short distances between transistors, but a screen is a massive integrated circuit -- your LCD screen is a chip from lithographic processes. Those matrix nanowires to each pixels are so tiny, it's hard to send a lot of power to those active matrix transistors. And when you have limited power (Ohm's Law!!!) you cannot switch a transistor as fast as you'd like. Laws-of-physics are being pushed to switch a tiny transistor, over a very long grid microwire, that very far from the refreshing electronics, with only an ultrabrief pulse (because the refreshing electronics can only refresh one pixel at a time). It's miraculous what screens today are doing!!

But OLED GtG becomes 0.1ms instead of nanoseconds, when the screen is bigger, because it's hard to send high voltages over ultra-tiny grid microwires behind the screen, to the transistor controlling a specific subpixel)

Now, try to increase refresh rate to 8K 1000Hz, then you've got this many subpixels per second:

7680 x 4320 x 3 x 1000 = 99,532,800,000 = About 100 billion subpixels per second. At this stage, you now only have 10 picoseconds to refresh a single pixel before you ignore the transistor (because refresh electronics is now too busy babysitting a different pixel's transistor). Imagine trying to babysit 100 billion children!

Some incredibly amazing optimizations have been done, with ultra-sensitive transistors, and entire-row refresh electronics. Some screen electronics have now become able to refresh an entire pixel row at once, at some incredibly huge cost increases, then the cost has fallen. But still, even 1 pixel row at 4320p 1000Hz is still less than one-quarter microsecond babysitting a whole pixel row! So you're taking turns babysitting 4320 groups of 7680 children, spending under 0.25 microsecond per group of 7680. Still pushes a lots of laws-of-physics trying to quickly switch a distant transistor gate through leaky microwires (that crosstalks/leaks current to adjacent microwires wires), but much better than picoseconds.

If you can FOCUS on just 1 pixel, it's easy to refresh it a billion Hz. Optical fibers do that. Optical fiber is like a single-pixel LED/laser "screen".

But trying to treat a screen like a bundle of 24 million optical fibers (or 100 million for 8K!) is kind of an expensive technological unobtainium.

Now even 1080p is 1920x1080x3 = over 6 million subpixels. Still a huge challenge.

Frankly, full stop, it is borderline amazing we can get digital-electronic 240Hz 1080p HD monitors for less than $10,000 today. Refreshing over six million subpixels 240 times per second, is a big technological achievement we're lucky to pay only ~$500 for.

Fundamentally, your 1080p digital screen is like controlling over 6 million lightbulbs connected to 6 million dimmer switches. (i.e. 8-bit creating 256 levels of brightness). And the refresh electronics is controlling these dimmable lightbulbs very fast (240 times a second at 240 Hz)

Claiming unobtanium refresh rates for a high resolution screen kind of belittles & dismisses the technological difficulty, so it's important to nuance it with the challenge of each pixel having to "wait to take its turn to be refreshed".

TL;DR:
1. The higher the resolution, the exponentially harder it is to refresh faster.
2. The higher the refresh rate for same resolution (beyond a certain point), the slower GtG becomes.


Further reading: www.blurbusters.com/scanout to see high speed video of refresh-one-pixel-at-a-time in action. Also, GtG is like soccer balls (even for OLED) -- read that to understand the GtG lagbheind effect, since a pulse to an active matrix transistor is kind of like giving a kick to a soccer ball. If you have less time to do a proper running start to a kick a soccer ball, the soccer ball won't go far. Because refresh electronics have to be in a hurry to kick those pixels to new colors, the GtG slows down the higher the refresh rate above-spec you go. That's why overclocked LCDs often have slower GtG than non-overclocked LCDs, so there's a sweet spot before the GtG abruptly slows down because you're beyond laws-of-physics limitations. The refresh rate race is sometimes throttled by that, until you parallelize more (which becomes expensive), like subdividing a screen into multiple screens, like LED jumbotrons, or multi-scan OLEDs seen in this thread.

The great news is that there IS a technological path to 8K 1000Hz within ten years. I'm part of some of these behind the scenes research.
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter

Image
Forum Rules wrote:  1. Rule #1: Be Nice. This is published forum rule #1. Even To Newbies & People You Disagree With!
  2. Please report rule violations If you see a post that violates forum rules, then report the post.
  3. ALWAYS respect indie testers here. See how indies are bootstrapping Blur Busters research!

thatoneguy
Posts: 181
Joined: 06 Aug 2015, 17:16

Re: Konka announce MicroLED Smart Watch and Sony teases a possible MicroLED display as well

Post by thatoneguy » 27 Dec 2020, 06:04

So this kinda went under the radar.
Nintendo Switch AR Glasses using MicroLED display...
https://www.techeblog.com/nintendo-swit ... r-glasses/

Image
Image

User avatar
AddictFPS
Posts: 314
Joined: 15 Jan 2020, 14:13

Re: Konka announce MicroLED Smart Watch and Sony teases a possible MicroLED display as well

Post by AddictFPS » 27 Dec 2020, 10:08

Interesting, each week a new MicroLED device ;)

I suppose these transparent MicroLED screens will have lower specs compared for instance with Samsung MicroLED TV 110". Seems the low cost MicroLED type, easy manufacture small pixel size. Samsung say it currently can't made 4K less than 110" easy, even that cost 150K USD, but this Nintendo device sure will have thousands of horizontal pixels in ~20cm and price is not as crazy of Samsung TV.

How would be a 40" 4K TV or 25-27 FHD monitor with this type of transparent MicroLED, using a black sustrate at back to disable transparency and increase contrast ? Maybe is interesting from specs/price Vs OLED, maybe not reach OLED quality in some specs, but not have burn-in !

Post Reply