Micro-LED Displays
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 พ.ค. 2024
- In this video, let us talk about Micro-LED technology - the Prince That Was Promised.
Links:
- The Asianometry Newsletter: asianometry.com
- Patreon: / asianometry
- The Podcast: anchor.fm/asianometry
- Twitter: / asianometry
![[TH] VCT Masters Shanghai Playoffs DAY 1 // 100T vs FUT | FNC vs GEN](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/erQ7pGChzxA/mqdefault.jpg)
illuminating
brilliant
...self
2 mons ???
How is this 2 months ago? Patreon?
truly enlightening words
One of the biggest areas where the quality of picture on CRTs was seen as poor by the majority of people wasn't the fault of the CRT, but rather the noisy analog signal of broadcast, things like RF or composite video connectors, and things like recordings done on VHS tapes. All of these things combined created fuzzier, noisier images that the CRT would dutifully render for you. Granted a CRT is really inefficient and heavy, but input a signal with something like SCART or S-Video with a digital input source, and you'll get a clean image, even high definition models existed. Sony's Trinitron models always looked really good back in the day compared to other ones I used.
Yeah the last CRT i bought was a 20in Dell (Sony) Trinitron that supported 1600x1200@ 60hz. That was around 2000. Used it for about a decade after that. I switched to LCD displays because they got cheap at higher resolutions. Also larger screens were good, because my farsightedness began to be noticable, this allowed me to push the screen further away from my eyes allowing me to not need readers. heh.
No... it was because of the CRT's. My N64 looks awesome with AV cables on my nice oled. Better than ever before.
Crts use staggered rgb layout and will never be as sharp especially with text that is its main downfall
We wont get into the many other things like size etc etc etc
Uh oh. The CRT apologists are here! Hurry and escape while they lug that holy grail 2003 Sony Trinitron made for professional video work that weights over 100lbs. to the discussion like it was the common everyday experience for us mere mortals.
CRTs were necessarily big and expensive. You could not produce a 50 inch easily shippable CRT tv for $200 shipping included.
Ironic that the world has gone from Red LED's being the cheapest/easiest to produce and Blue the hardest/most expensive to completely the other way around.
Yes, it's very strange.
I remember having a maplin catalog as a kid, and the elusive blue LED was sold for around £5 a peice... Or more. While the humble red yellow and green LED's were often sold for around 5p. Now you can get a pack of 100 blue LED's from China for less than what one would have cost a few decades ago.
I also remember a time when LED's were considered ever-lasting. Now we've got to the point where things are made so cheaply, that the average LED bulb fails sooner than the traditional incandescent.
@@dancoulson6579 When I started in the electronics' hobby at 14 y.o., there was NO blue LED... (I'm "just" 49 now ;-)
The LED bulbs COULD be ever lasting, if they didn't pushed its components beyond their specs...
@@OgbondSandvol - 49 ! Just a kid ... have a cookie. I bought my first LED, a very dim red one, in 1973, when starting high school. Actually, the first blue LEDs, were made by Cree, in 1985. They cost ~$60 each, at the time. Price fell to $1 each by 1990. They brute forced it by using silicon carbide, which can tolerate a lot of heat. They where rather dim. 1992 -ish or 1994, more realistically, is when GaN became a thing. Now you had not only blue LEDs, but very bright blue LEDs ! You also got true green LEDs, as opposed to the earlier washed out yellow-green LEDS that came out earlier.
I think the problem with the green and red LEDs is the size. Red and green LEDs in the non-micro LED scale, are not an issue. Its the trying to make those colors at the micro scale.
@@dancoulson6579 Gosh! I regularly order electronics components from Maplin during my university days in UK during the 70’s. While my university order components from RS Components.
Are they still in bussines now?
@@anuardalhar6762 RS most certainly is!
The invention of the Blue LED was so important that the inventor and the group that worked on it, both japanese researchers, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2014. Physics is considered one of the most, if not the most, hard subject to win the Nobel prize.
Yhea... and after that Obama get the Nobel prize of the peace for... well, for... for... literally not doing anything?
And then the Nobel prizes become the joke that they are today... and have one is not a respectable thing anymore...
And then better that you dont read what signed the developer of the blue led after that Nobel price...
@Zaydan Naufal why aren't more poat-80's inventions winning more Nobel prizes?
@@johndawson6057 Its hard to quantify the impact of what was invented until the future is my guess. A blue led may not seem like a big deal at the time, because other tech had not been invented. Move forward a decade or so and that "small" discovery is the key tech which all other new tech is based upon. Takes time to measure the importance of a discovery.
@@johndawson6057 like biology, medicine and chemistry too can take decades before its importance to mankind is uncovered and rewarded.
An expert interviewed on FOMO's channel asked to guess when prices will be attainable for consumers for micro LED TVs and he said around the early 2030s.
Those big stadium displays consume huge amounts of power. The largest reach close to 1MW at full brightness and many have their own air conditioning.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidophor That's the first jumbo tron technology. It was also used by NASA for their apollo control room.
yes but that's simply because of their insane brightness, the efficiency is still higher than both LCD and OLED.
1MW? are you sure
@@reahs4815 Yes for the largest displays it can be that high.
Modern displays no longer require air conditioning in any climate, though for lifetime reasons some in the middle east are air conditioned. 1MW would be a very large display but, yes, people drop 10's of millions of dollars on gigantic displays that draw 1MW sometimes.
I nearly threw my phone when you said that 90s era LCD panels (or any lcd panels for that matter) have better contrast ratios than CRTs
you don't know how much i'm waiting for Micro-LED tech
Ok, so I can count on having a micro-LED monitor about the same time my local nuclear fusion generator comes on line?
Lmfao😂😂🤣🤣
not another word against CRTs. Its superior to LCDs in many respects.
No it is not.
@@ToTheGAMES yes it is
@@ToTheGAMES Yeah, CRTs offered better contrast and better color rendition until very, very recently. Until the past couple of years, you had to go pretty far up most product lines to find an LCD that offered comparable color and contrast performance to a mainstream CRT from two decades ago.
@@sunspot42 Well we are talking about micro-leds so going "pretty far up" is already implied.
@@brodriguez11000 Right, but newer panels with localized dimming and quantum dots can hit pretty high contrast ratios and have remarkable color accuracy and brightness. You can finally get an LCD screen that rivals a CRT in those regards for a fairly reasonable price. That’s a fairly decent development.
As a PC enthusiast I feel like Micro-LED is one of those technologies that has been 5 years in the future for the past 10 years
every single vid you make is an absolute banger. Id love for you to produce one on the back story and explanation of the tech in quantom dot. thanks for all the work you put into these
Absolute banger if the subliminal agenda is bash other Asian countries except mainland China with Taiwan pride. Almost professionally prepared videos but very skewed presentations and incomplete understanding of the technology, economy and country specific politics.
For example, in this Micro LED display video, the narrator is confused about application of Micro LED by showing outdoor LED displays. He is also unclear of micro LED by interchanging micro LED pitch size and micro LED illuminating technologies. Asianometry, is QD-LED a micro LED or quantum dot display?
Hey, don't forget the CFL LCDs! Those were where backlights really were most of the time until LEDs took over. I even had a MacBook with CFL backlighting.
I still proudly use a CFL LCD in the PC of my electronics' shop.
Ccfl*
I still have a CCFL LCD panel that works fine. Though over time the CCFL gets dimmer and dimmer. An old Dell laptop I had with a 1920x1080 CCFL backlight got very dim and I got rid of it. So yes, LED backlighting is better, it's nice and bright and I've never seen it dim significantly while I've used it.
I came here to say this. He missed plasma and CFL backlit LCDs, those were out for quite awhile before the LED backlights came along.
@@profdc9501 I also have one, but the colors are pretty skewed at this point.
my guess is the QD-Leds will be the way to go - only blue backing mini LED's with efficient photon down-shifting via quantum dot to the colour wanted.
Was thinking the same thing. Perfect the easiest to produce color and then use quantum dots to produce the other two colors.
Yep, and with single type, entire screen segments of (for example) 64x64 pixels with control circuits could be made as single chips more cheaply combined into full resolution displays than individual color dots. It should be noted that some mass produced products already do this, in particular the modern optical computer mouse.
Main issue is that blue qd leds still have lifetime issues. Time will tell if the lifetime can be improved quick enough.
@@johndododoe1411 I was thinking about the fluidic self assembly on how to get the right color in the right place. With one chip having all the three colors would fix that. And you end up with 1/3 of the chips to place.
That sounds like the most plausible route that companies will take.
There was also a tech called SED (if I recall correctly) which was basically like having every pixel be a separate CRT (one electron emitter per pixel). Basically a truly flat CRT, which would have had excellent contrast (although probably the same phosphor burn in issues)
Yes, surface-conduction electron-emitter display. Every _subpixel_ was effectively a very tiny CRT: an electron emitter, a small gap, then a red, green, or blue phosphor. It was initially developed by Canon and then they partnered with Toshiba to make displays. The display quality of the prototypes shown off at trade shows was reportedly exceptional (but this was a good 15 years ago), but the introduction date kept sliding and sliding so clearly there were some ultimately insurmountable hurdles. I do know that one problem was that subpixels could only be on or off, brightness had to be controlled by flickering them many times per frame.
I just came here to mention this technology. It seemed very promising circa 2000 - a direct competitor to plasma displays in particular - but as LCD displays improved, eventually displacing plasma, it became clear they were never going to be competitive with LCDs. At least, not competitive enough to warrant developing an entirely new technology.
Pity. If they'd come along circa 2000-2005, they would have been a game changer.
There was a complicated patent lawsuit contesting the business arrangement with Toshiba. Afterwards, Toshiba was no longer associated.
See Kent displays, Zvi Yaniv. Shucks. Missed again. Did save Canon bundles of money as their business model was faulty though in my opinion.
@@sunspot42 *...but as LED displays improved..."*
_LCD_ displays, you mean.
@@bricaaron3978 Yeah LCD. Fixed.
Although LEDs are a big reason for LCDs finally rivaling CRTs and plasma when it comes to contrast ratios. Dimmable LED backlights have vastly improved LCD picture quality.
I saw this video and I was so excited. Micro-led is one of those technologies that is so perfect but has challenges including cost, manufacturing, etc, if I ever have the opportunity to buy a microled monitor or tv i'll definitely remember how far away it was in 2020
Its still just as far away. I expect we won't see mass market micro LED till at least 2040 if not 2050.
They should make 50 or 55 inch 1080p Micro-LED tv. Most tv cables are still streamed in 1080p, so don't see any problem here. If you watch movies/tv shows on Netflix or Disney plus who has 4k content then you just have to deal with 1080p resolution until they make 4k Micro-LED affordable.
@@PWingert1966 No way, it will be before that.
@@tragile9108 If it does happen soponer than that it will be what we are currently seeing in select models at sizes of 65" or larger and they will still command a 25% premium. It's not clear if Micro LED will displace OLED in the market. We are just now at the point where most manufacturers are replacing their LED lines with OLED 2013 by LG, and it's taken 10 years to reach this stage. So, if we assume a similar timeline or micro-LED debuted in 2088 and we can expect it no earlier than 2028 but for it to displace OELD we can look at LED timeline. The LED was invented in 1962 than 65 years to be displaced by OLED. Assuming half that time gives us 2048 making some adjustments for manufacturing at scale would give a reasonable estimate of 2040 or as late as 2045!
Good to see Plessey making an appearance. One of the rare UK fab companies, I remember visiting their Plymouth fab as a schoolkid in the early 80s, goggling at 3" wafers. The company's history goes back to 1917, or at least the name does; the logo comes from the days when it did lots of military radar. Not as well known as it shuold be.
I bought the $80K Samsung TV, hooked my Atari 2600 up, Pitfall never looked so good. Gonna play Demon Attack next, I'm almost giddy.
I almost forgot all these problems with microled, great summary. The transistor once used to be impossible to make a reality. I guess these things just need the right minds and people together, that's what makes it such a slow progress.
That's not what it is. They're dragging their feet because they know that once people have these things there will be zero incentive to buy new products for 10+ years. The display manufacturing industry is a joke.
If you think CRTs had poor image quality, then you probably only saw some heavily used consumer-grade CRT TVs with a low line count. Sony Trinitron and NEC/Mitsubishi Diamondtron and possibly other aperture grille CRT monitors had and still do have good image quality, though they might not be optimal for small text unless perfectly calibrated and in good shape. Aside from the bulky size, I'd say the main drawback of CRTs is the less-than-perfect geometry.
This guy is just an industry shill. They've been able to make cheap MicroLED displays for years and only aren't doing it because rubes keep buying junk.
That's what this industry does. MILK for as long as possible, and d i r t b a gs like this guy are their mouthpiece.
He doesn't even know what he's talking about.
This guy is just an industry sh i | l. They've been able to make cheap MicroLED displays for years and only aren't doing it because rubes keep buying junk.
That's what this industry does. MILK for as long as possible, and d i r t b a gs like this guy are their mouthpiece.
He doesn't even know what he's talking about.
It sounds to me like the tech won't be practical until someone comes up with a way to just construct the pixels on the substrate.
Yeah why won't they man.
Think about it this way.. OLEDs were already being prototyped in the 90s, I remember writing an article on them in primary school... but OLED TVs are still not affordable 30 years later, if you consider the fact that their lifespan is only about 5 years of actual use...
interesting video on a rather complex and potentially new and exciting technology. Just saw 2023 CES piece on Samsung exhibiting a Micro-LED set.
The display industry has been working for years to get back to the CRT black levels. CRT Monitors had the advantage displaying the actual resolution they were set to, unlike the monitors today which use tricks to display the requested resolution.
4:58 'sloshing around'. This metaphor pleases me.
This video finally explained to me _why_ it's so hard to get good yields on micro LED! Thanks :D.
Love your closing statement. I am told, the most promosing technology in mass transfer right now is LIFT (laser induced forward transfer), using eximer laser with mask to transfer a n area of micro LED's instead of one by one. However, before it is proven successful in mass scale I would still be doubtful.
So you make a substraight that is just connections (like a surface covered with a furry forest much smaller than the leds), you make a paint out of all 3 colors of micro leds (probably even smaller ones), and you paint them onto the substraight. Then you have a device like a fpga that tests every set of connections and sees what color is produced and programs itself to know what connections produce what colors at what points.
A CRT, while incapable of large sizes actually had the ability to create true black which and an LCD can not.
Given the difficulty and the costs involved it's looking more and more like MicroLED displays may never come to market in the kinds of quantities that everyone was originally hoping for. That entire area of technology may well just be skipped and/or set aside while others (and older technologies that can be mass-produced affordably) are updated, advanced and approved upon. And, that's all perfectly fine as not all technology necessarily needs to find its way through to direct commercial viability. Besides, there is still a LOT more performance that can still be squeezed out of existing display tech like LCD and OLED. Every year companies find new way to improv on those platforms as well.
Fascinating video! Very informative. I did want to point out that they actually used compact florescent bulbs for backlighting in some early LCD displays. I had no idea until I saw some retro computer channels having to replace them.
You talked about CRTs like they're such a bad technology, but they were still better than LCDs and even better than OLED in some ways. The near-infinite horizontal pixels would've been really nice. I get that CRTs are analog and have some drawbacks, but even still, I'd love to see how the technology would exist with 2022 tech inside. I bet it'd be a lot nicer than we remember. You also completely skipped over Plasma. Pretty sure Plasma is just mini CRTs.
This is the best explanation of what MicroLED technology is all about and the problem with how hard it's to manufacture MicroLED's. Thank you for sharing this video and information with us because now I fully understand why it's taking so long for this awesome technology to be available for purchase. Hopefully one day we will have the opportunity to purchase a MicroLED at a price that most of us can truly afford. Please keep up the awesome work and I promise to keep coming back for more and sharing your video's with as many people as I possibly can because you definitely deserve all the exposure that you can receive...💯👍
great video :D
I still think CRTs have the best colour reproduction/response time/smoothest image, but obviously they have the worst packaging constraints and their resolution hasn't kept pace with other technologies. Hopefully MicroLED will be the best of everything.
I am glad I'm not the only person who doesn't agree with that part of the video. Didn't CRTs have perfect blacks (and therefore superior contrast ratio to LCDs), and better viewing angles?
LCD monitors won purely because they don't weigh a ton, and because they don't take up half your desk. Not because they offer superior image quality.
@@tamius-han Yeah they did, that part of the video is completely inaccurare
A CRT for a color TV, and its associated circuitry, was/is an impressive technical achievement. On the screen was a pattern of Red Green and Blue phosphors. At the back were three corresponding electron guns, R G and B. Only the beam from the R gun (for example) was allowed to strike the R phosphors. Likewise for G and B. Yet the three beams were swept via magnetic deflection over the screen in unison, and the beams had to maintain their identity with each one striking its assigned color phosphor.
You may (or may not) find it interesting to learn more about these systems, for the sake of history if nothing else. In any event, don't be throwing shade at that technology. It worked pretty danged good . . . until something better came along.
@@clarencegreen3071 we literally just said we prefer it lol.
Displays with individual emitters per pixels I think will always have uniformity issues or divergent aging problems of the pixels.
It was with CRT, plasma and OLED.
The issue with LEDs is that their brightness decreases with time, leading to 'patchy' displays.
Other than that, colours, viewing angles remain very consistent with time.
Love the humour mixed into these videos. That introduction was golden! 😁 (but there are many more hidden gems in the video).
Your videos on chip manufacturing are always a joy. Would love one on OLED displays and Quantum Dots.
Content is lit as always 💡
Great analysis! Reminds me of my chemical engineering days ... without the math. Very much appreciated!
I made a prototype device today for an idea I had, it uses tiny tiny 0201 size LEDs (they are such small specks that you can barely even feel them if you rub your fingers together), it was not actually that difficult to place with tweezers.
One time at work I had to assemble 3600 of those small 0201 LEDs because the P&P machine had problems with the packaging tape.
RIP Nick Holonyak, inventor of the LED.
Seems like quantum dots is the way to go. When Linus was looking at the wall, it's not low power, it puts out a ton of heat that needs extra ac, and the smaller panels that lock together to make a large panel isn't color calibrated. So if one panel goes out put a new one in the colors are slightly off, and the panel go out often enough.
The 146 size is 5.76 m/2 uses 2990 watts max. And needs 10,212 BTU of cooling. This is the second smallest one.
CRT worked poorly? It took a long time for LCD to match them in overall quality.
it still hasn't
They still haven't in some areas especially gamin related (Digital Foundry made a great analysis video on this). Mind you LCD has other advantages like size.
Agree. Except for its weight and bulky size it is superior than LCD in almost every way.
@@NSS7 I don't think there is still a lot of metrics where CRT is better than high quality LCD. Pixel response time, global contrast ratio maybe (but VA screens are still great and LCD are better with localized contrast)
I watch every report twice, my education is coming along nicely. Thank you for your work.
It's a challenge they should overcome. It just might take longer than we expected.
Great video as always. It's staggering the amount of useful information that's on your channel John, thanks for all your hard work.
Excellent ep. thank you for making it!
So from my perspective there are two options to make this somewhat easier.
1) Construct the panel from only blue LEDs and then use quantum dots for the red and green sub pixels. Solves the need for green and red LEDs.
2)Do away with LEDs altogether and use electrical charge to directly stimulate blue quantum dots. Then use red and green quantum dots after the blue ones for those sub pixels.
Yeah, the huge advantage of quantum dots is they can just be printed on a substrate, if memory serves.
They're talking about using quantum dots in solar panels as well. Solar cells absorb certain wavelengths better than others, so use quantum dots to shift the incoming white light of incompatible frequencies into those compatible frequencies. You could greatly improve the efficiency of the solar cell. Problem right now is that the quantum dots we know how to make would probably degrade pretty quickly in full sunlight, but that's likely an issue that can be resolved.
@@sunspot42 Some display drawing tablets use Q-dots.
People up to 2019 on a nostalgia trip on youtube were laughing at old television series where now laughably outdated, then bleeding edge computers cost $5-10k. Nobody is laughing now. Price brackets for every single category of item even remotely related to information technology just keep increasing and things get less and less affordable.
I have perfect vision (actually my right eye is 20/16 instead of 20/20), and between my 159 PPI monitor and 534 PPI phone I couldn't care less which one I'm staring at. Who are these screens for? People with money to waste to enjoy the placebo effect of sunk cost?
no thought provoking questions please 😤
Leds did NOT free us from CRTs. For the first years for Desktop Monitors, the back light came from fluorescent tubes.
In one of your older vides you mentioned how your mother said that your voice could put people to sleep. But it turns out it's just the right tone and timbre for this kind of informative content.
0:10 - I'd argue a CRT looks better at a given low resolution than any LCD I've seen. Sports fans continued to enjoy using them well into the 2010's because LCD's were cursed.
Just fyi, "The Wall" tv is probably a reference to an old sci-fi novel, "Fahrenheit 451".
I'd love to see a video from you talking about Laser-phosphor Displays, aka the next gen CRTs
Early LCDs used CCFL backlights, not LEDs.
We also had CCFLs.
I love your research and analysis of a topic so in depth, and getting to the core of issues.
But still your meme's make me think, where does he find those? 😂😂
I don't think micro led TV's will ever be a mainstream thing.
0:20 the contrast ratio of CRTs was MUCH better than the one of LCDs! The brightness level probably as well, at least on average.
Thanks for pointing that out. I was going to make the same comment. The contrast ratio as well as motion resolution was much better on surface emitting displays like CRT and Plasma than even modern LCDs.
It's too bad that sample-and-hold is likely here to stay.
I dunno ... I used many CRTs but didn't really ever think their contrast was that good after using an LCD. Maybe it was because of their brightness. I still have a Sony GDM-W900 and tbh it looks like ****. The response time is why I've kept it though.
I've always noticed the overlap between CRT fans, Morrowind fans and clinical obesity.
@@anonanous3129 you made my day
Whoa whoa whoa. CRT's are awesome.
The Samsung S95B OLED is the closest TV you can buy that has micro LED like performance. It has deep inky blacks, vibrant quantum dot colors, and brightness that can hit over 1000 nits like many HDR capable LED TVs. It's the best TV I've ever seen and I own an OLED from LG. Once micro LED TVs are affordable that will change the game forever.
I must've missed the memo on Micro LEDs. I have never heard about this technology before, thank's for the learning experience :-)
Nice. Quality research. Thx
Outstanding video! Bravo! A couple of minor issues: the key advantage with microLEDs is brightness - I.e. being able to use them outdoors. Also, 20 microns is fine for a mobile phone display and 100microns us fine for a large TV display.
Big enough for a faux window.
@@brodriguez11000 a 55" TV with stripey RGB pixels, would have each pixel 105 microns each. admittedly there needs to be some space in between. But you get the picture... 🙂
His description of CRT monitors is wildly inaccurate however, they had perfect blacks and instant response times.
I would work toward a stacked geometry. Red on the bottom can be largest and has insufficient energy to excite green or blue carriers into conduction. Similar considerations apply to the green under blue interface. We do need to prevent the light going the other way, which can be done with dichroic mirrors. Lattice matching among these layers and material purity/control may limit yield, but I think this will win in the long term.
Thank you for yet another excellent tech overview (though somehow your history of displays at the beginning of the video missed that LCDs were used for quite a while without LED illumination).
Thank you. Most often I enjoy listening to your information. It appears to me at least, the content conveyed is concise, clear, and easy to comprehend from a layperson's perspective. Well done indeed.
If you grow them on sapphire (already transparent) then why not just grow three layers, plate/mask/etch the conductive lattice onto each and then stack them? Each layer could just shine through if they're offset correctly
Jaybird Display, as far as I know, is the only company making a consumer-grade microled array for smartglasses-like product developments.
Reminder: Like Kurzweil says: good inventions are a product of good timing. By this I mean to say: MicroVision has been commercially manufacturing the best optics technology for virtual retina image projection for over 20 years. The wearable face-computer is like a commercial version of last generations homebrew computer clubs of the early 80's. It's here to stay and that much is not disputable. The only real thing that you're inventing is a reason.
MAKES 4680 battery production look like child’s play
Quality content, keep going 🌟🌟
This makes me appreciate all the advantages LCD screens have in ease of manufacture.
People get upset about 3 dead pixels, I don't think they'd settle for 2000 dead pixels on their super bright, super expensive screen!
The "First LED" TV's were backlit by CFL tubes FYI then came LED backlit displays.
OLED is just amazing.
Based
They must find a way to grow the micro-LED in place. This mean abandoning GaAs and InGaN emissive materials, and using a single material while utilising heterojunctions to get different wavelengths. It is a challenge for solid-state physicists...
This sounds something like fusion power generation. Some time in the future..
fluidic self assembly is cool to the point that i hope it's the technique that ends up winning in the end
Ultrasonic fluid for placement...
@@HansSchulze I was thinking the same thing
I wonder if they could combine fluidic self assembly or a similar technique that would be assisted with ultrasound resonance and or acoustic suspension technology to vibrate the LED's into place
/watch?v=wvJAgrUBF4w
/watch?v=MnjKa3EZXwg
maybe the micro LED's each have their own unique enough resonant frequency already or if not maybe some extra element could be added to make them resonate at different desired frequencies so they could be steered individually into place by the ultrasound.
@@andreamitchell4758 Resonance is usually mass or size related, so that might not help.
LED diodes not only emit light… they also absorb light, not super efficiently as the most high tech solar collectors, but well enough… so every old LED tv that is thrown away could actually generate electrical voltage… not super well, but it does work. If you connect wires to the old display and measure emitted voltage when placed in the sun you will get current. The possibility of making LED displays that generate their own power from sunlight photonics is entirely feasible… not sure why we don’t. Remember absorb as well as emit.
It's the same reason you wouldn't use a sub woofer as a microphone or solar panel as a display even if it would technically work. You'd need separate electronics to handle it and the inefficiencies from the unoptimized system wouldn't give you usable product. And TVs are under lights that only emit several watts of power anyways; I also wouldn't want to have my tv shut off when I dim the lights.
The issue is that the amount of power generated by an LED in direct sunlight is minimal. Many many times smaller than is required for operation.
A solar 1"x1/4" solar panel, specifically designed to convert light to electricity is barely enough to power a calculator. You would probably have to use a good 100 LED's to acheive the same power output.
So sure, you _could_ utilize the LED screen to generate power from light. But it probably wouldn't be able to do much more than power the little red standby LED at the bottom of the screen.
The cost associated with the extra circuitry to implement this functionality would greatly exceed any potential power savings gained.
However from a scientific perspective, the fact that an LED is able to operate in such a manner is very interesting, none the less.
A. Professional CRTs actually had great Contrast Levels because they are Emissive.
B. Plasma Displays also had great Contrast Levels because they were Emissive.
C. LCD Displays won because of price, but had terrible Contrast Levels (and off-axis fade) because they are Transmissive with (initially) Florescent or LED Backlights.
D. LCD Displays improved their Contrast Levels with better LCD Technology and Local Backlights (they also improved their off-axis performance).
E. OLED Displays are again Emissive Displays - they do not have Backlights.
F. Micro LEDs are non-Organic LEDs and are again Emissive.
G. Sapphire is, in this case, just an Aluminum-Oxide substrate, Al3O2.
And by the way, kudos for noting the Apple purchase of LuxVue. A friend of mine worked at LuxVue and helped them develop their fundamental technology. I've been waiting for that to bear fruit ever since. Unfortunately my friend succumbed to Parkinson's last year, so he never got a chance to see his work realized ...
Fantastic video. Thanks.
Alpha-Phoenix does a series on PVD and MBE to create thin external layers.
Loved that video!
Awesome review
Great video. Not sure if this is within your knowledge, but I’d love a video on virtualisation and its future, particularly within the context of the Broadcom/VMWare deal. Thank you!
cool, never knew it was so complex! hopefully by the time microled comes out, it'll cost around 10G's for a 75" 8K microled tv. :)
And like OLED will cost $2k in 6 years
You mentioned a couple of mass transfer methods but there are others as well like laser based transfer and stamp based transfer. Allegedly samsung electronics is using laser based transfer for their 2022 microled tvs.
Use a magnet to pick it up then drop it were you want it. Junk yards and micro-LEDs unite!
What about A pick and place style roller? Using MEMS to hold on via negative pressure, then slowly rotate the roller onto the substrate, but move the substrate at the same time to get the desired spacing. (and up/down to not catch any LEDs by accident).
Or combining fluidic self assembly with pick and place to make chiplets that can be effectively assembled?
Also, as someone else noted, a QD layer over blue LEDs is most likely where the industry will go. Consolidating 3 LED types into just one seems the best to increase output consistency and reduce R&D expenditure in fabrication when it's more needed in assembly.
And final side note: Thoughts on optical antennas?
Something in my head lit up!
You start out with misinformation. The CRT developed from simple beginnings, but in the last few decades developed to be a high precision imaging device that was superior to at least the first 20 years of LCD and other flat panel display technology developments. We had CRTs in the military and commercial simulation market that were capable of resolution beyond full High Definition 1080P before High Definition even existed in the consumer market. We had adaptations of CRT technology that delivered this image quality on display screens that were as large as 40 feet diagonal, or even larger. At a time when no digital technology could even come close.
Eventually, digital technologies caught up but it took many years and billions of dollars of R&D to do it.
Even now, the CRT has specific advantages, chief being its super low latency. For some very competitive gamers, CRT monitors are still their only choice because the savings of a few milliseconds makes the difference between winning and coming in second place for them.
The CRT is better than you give it credit for.
However, true full resolution 4K is too much to ask for a CRT to deliver because that takes 300 MHz of clean bandwidth at high power levels, and cathode capacitance is a limiting factor. Plus, you wouldn't really want to have to pay for a linear video amplifier chain that can deliver 200 or more watts of clean power at frequencies up to 300 MHz.
I think today anyone in their right mind would just use an OLED if they really needed those last few milliseconds of response time.
Thanks for the information :)
Blended matrix vapour deposition on substrate, with laser scanning and focused beam scattering on substrate via polarizer filters.... holographic effects.
First, the LCD was illuminated by fluorescent lamps, and before OLED, there was the plasma. The concept of quantum dots is somewhat a mix of the principles of diodes and plasma.
ooh _that_ shockley, sure yeah, now i understand. I was thinking of _another_ shockley...
😂
Let there be light!
12:35 a Korean company called KIMM. So original 😁
The sapphire wafer used is synthetic sapphire, not actual mined gemstone sapphire.
Press X to doubt. 0:28 that flat panel monitors in the early 2000s and 2010s had better image quality than CRT monitors is something that's almost completely untrue. They had the same inky blacks of OLED monitors, that they had worse contrast is not true. Early versions of flat-panel monitors looked horrible. Response time is also something that was unmatched with CRTs all the way until just a few years ago with OLEDs.
So I'll repeat it again, CRTs had perfect contrast, zero ghosting and instant response times, and often perfect colors as well. This part of the video is wildly inaccurare.
A high-end CRT monitor like a Sony Trinitron from the 90s would still be competitive today against most consumer monitors that aren't microLED or OLED, and is still comparable to those.
Digital Foundry made a great video on this, highly recommend watching it. There's also a great article from Eurogamer, Vice made one as well.
Every time you say "quantum", I hear "magic".
CRT is still the best display