Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
IEEE SVCE Chapter
Survival of the Fittest:The Battle for the TV Market
Norman BardsleyDirector of Display Technology
DisplaySearch
CupertinoApril 26th, 2005
2For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Outline
Rapid Growth in FPD MarketLiquid Crystal Displays DominateTV Sales Reinvigorate PDPsAll Microdisplay RPTVs Gain Market ShareRapid OLED Growth Stumbles
Sales Forecasts for TV marketLCDs (<40”)PDP (40-50”)RPTV (>50”)OLED (>2010)
PerformanceLCD vs PDP
CostsLCD and PDP
Conclusion
3For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Display Revenues by CRT & Flat Panel ($US Billions)
Total display revenues are forecast to grow from $59.3 B in 2003 to $103.9B by 2008. The CAGRs are: total displays 11.9%, FPDs 15.8% and CRTs –3.4%
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$US
Mill
ion
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Gro
wth
CRT $18,840 $15,428 $15,869 $15,009 $14,170 $13,304 $12,479 FPD $29,691 $43,869 $61,705 $62,595 $75,939 $85,315 $91,446 Growth 18% 22% 31% 0% 16% 9% 5%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
4For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
FPD Revenues by Technology ($US Millions)
a-Si TFT LCD is forecast to grow from a 69.5% share in 2003 to 69.9% in 2004, while PDPs grow from 6.4% to 6.7%, LTPS grows from 6.6% to 7.2% and PMLCDs drop from 11.9% to 9.9%. None of the other technologies have greater than a 1.4% share.
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
$100,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
$US
Milli
ons
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Grow
th
a-Si TFT LCD PMLCD PDP LTPS TFT LCDOLED HTPS TFT LCD DLP VFDEL LCOS EINK Y/Y Growth
5For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
PDP Shipments by Application• TV module shipments surged on seasonal strength supported by lower prices.
Public display shipments also continued to grow however.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
000s
of U
nits
Public Display 68.7 76.5 73.0 88.7 85.9 92.5 TV 379.4 525.4 621.6 707.7 787.2 1,101.6
Q3'03 Q4'03 Q1'04 Q2'04 Q3'04 Q4'04
6For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
PDP Revenues, Q/Q and Y/Y Growth• PDP module revenues rose 23% Q/Q and 31% Y/Y in Q4’04 on higher volumes. For 2004, PDP module revenues rose 51% to $4.3B.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
$US
Mill
ions
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
Gro
wth
Revenues $718 $937 $1,017 $1,015 $1,001 $1,228 Q/Q Growth 16% 31% 8% 0% -1% 23%Y/Y Growth 0% 136% 87% 64% 39% 31%
Q3'03 Q4'03 Q1'04 Q2'04 Q3'04 Q4'04
7For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
LCD RPTV Revenues and GrowthRevenues for LCD RPTV grew by 42% in Q3’04 to $596M.We expect revenue growth to trail unit growth in Q4’04 as prices fall more aggressively to sell-through the significant Q3’04 sell-in growth.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
$US
Mill
ions
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Gro
wth
Revenues $464.5 $419.2 $596.4 $709.3 Sequential Growth -10% 42% 19%
Q1'04 Q2'04 Q3'04 Q4'04
8For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
DLP RPTV Revenues and GrowthRevenue growth kept pace with unit growth in Q3’04. Revenues grew by 53% to $493M for the quarter. We expect growth to remain robust in Q4’04 with a 42% rate of growth to $700M for that quarter.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
$US
Mill
ions
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Gro
wth
Revenues $378.4 $322.3 $492.8 $699.9 Sequential Growth -15% 53% 42%
Q1'04 Q2'04 Q3'04 Q4'04
9For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
LCOS RPTV Revenues and GrowthOn a percentage basis, revenues did not outgrow units in Q3’04 as price pressures competing RP technologies applies downward pressure on LCOS RPTVs. We forecast unit growth to continue to outpace revenue growth as prices continue to fall.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
$US
Mill
ions
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Gro
wth
Revenues $11.5 $19.5 $38.5 $52.8 Sequential Growth 70% 98% 37%
Q1'04 Q2'04 Q3'04 Q4'04
10For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
OLED Shipments &Revenue
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Un
its
(000
)
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
400%
Gro
wth
(%
)
Total 2,302 2,906 4,052 6,475 9,987 7,806 5,801 7,387 9,335
Y/Y grow th 334% 169% 43% 14% -7%
Q/Q Grow th 26% 39% 60% 54% -22% -26% 27% 26%
Q1'03 Q2'03 Q3'03 Q4'03 Q1'04 Q2'04 Q3'04 Q4'04 Q1'05 0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
US
$(00
0)
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
Gro
wth
(%)
Total 45,33 49,10 59,83 81,24 111,8 79,53 62,07 85,41 107,6
Q/Q Grow th 8% 22% 36% 38% -29% -22% 38% 26%
Y/Y Grow th 147% 62% 4% 5% -4%
Q1'03 Q2'03 Q3'03 Q4'03 Q1'04 Q2'04 Q3'04 Q4'04 Q1'05
11For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
OLED Revenue Forecast (US$000)
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
US$
(000
)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
Gro
wth
(%)
Mobile Telephone Mobile Telephone Sub IndustrialPDA MP3 Player Digital CameraNotebook PC Game CamcorderCar Audio DVD OtherY/Y Growth
12For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
13For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
14For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
15For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Market Shares for Large-Screen TV (>40”)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
40"+
Mar
ket P
enet
ratio
n
PDPs 30% 39% 45.6% 48% 48% 47%
RPTVs 69% 57% 45.9% 38% 34% 28%
LCDs 1% 4% 8% 14% 19% 25%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
16For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
17For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Performance: LCDs vs PDPs
BrightnessContrastViewing AngleColorPower ConsumptionLifetime
18For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Brightness Specs Can Be Misleading
Measurements on a PDP at NIDL (Sarnoff)
The Spec Sheet for this panel claims 560 cd/m2
19For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Brightness Measurements
20For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Black Levels
Source: Larry Weber
21For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Contrast Measurements
22For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Contrast Ratio in Bright Rooms
Source: Hiroshi Take (SID 2003)
23For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Viewing Angle: Luminance
Source: Larry Weber
24For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Viewing Angle: Contrast
Viewing angle performance is a critical quality factor for LCD TV, because unlike laptop displays, LCD TVs are viewed from many different angles. This is an area where the LCD industry has focused much effort.Though manufacturers tout 170+ viewing angles – There is no one metric for viewing angle performance.
Sample Results – Contrast vs Viewing AngleContrast Ratio vs Viewing Angle
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
-90 ° -60 ° -30 ° 0 ° 30 ° 60 ° 90 °
Viewing Angle
Con
trast Horz
Vert
Model A (VA)
Contrast Ratio vs Viewing Angle
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
-90 ° -60 ° -30 ° 0 ° 30 ° 60 ° 90 °
Viewing Angle
Con
trast Horz
Vert
Model B (IPS)Source: Mike Wilson (Westar)
25For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Viewing Angle: Contrast
-80-60
-40-20
020
40
60
80-80-70
-60-50
-40-30
-20-10
010
2030
4050
6070
80
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Lcd/m^2
Horz Vert
Viewing Angle Surface Plot
350-400
300-350
250-300
200-250
150-200
100-150
50-100
0-50
-80-60
-40-20
020
4060
80-80-70
-60-50
-40-30
-20-10
010
2030
4050
6070
80
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Lcd/m^2
Horz Vert
Viewing Angle Surface Plot
0-2 2-4
4-6 6-8
8-10 10-12
12-14 14-16
16-18 18-20
-80
-60
-40-20
020
4060
80
-80
-60-40
-200
2040
6080
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Lcd/m 2̂
Horz Vert
Viewing Angle Surface Plot
350-400
300-350
250-300
200-250
150-200
100-150
50-100
0-50
White Luminance
Contrast
Source: Mike Wilson (Westar)Black Luminance
26For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Viewing Angle Variation
Brightness Black LevelContrast Ratio
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Horz
Vert
Viewing Angle Contour Plot
0-5 5-10
10-15 15-20
20-25 25-30
30-35
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Horz
Vert
Viewing Angle Contour Plot350-400
300-350
250-300
200-250
150-200
100-150
50-100
0-50
IPS
VA
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Horz
Vert
Viewing Angle Contour Plot
600-700
500-600
400-500
300-400
200-300
100-200
0-100
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Horz
Vert
Viewing Angle Contour Plot450-500
400-450
350-400
300-350
250-300
200-250
150-200
100-150
50-100
0-50
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Horz
Vert
Viewing Angle Contour Plot400-450
350-400
300-350
250-300
200-250
150-200
100-150
50-100
0-50
c
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Horz
Vert
Viewing Angle Contour Plot
0-0.5 0.5-1
1-1.5 1.5-2
2-2.5 2.5-3
3-3.5 3.5-4
Source: Mike Wilson (Westar)
27For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Color Gamut
CIE 1976
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7u'
v'
White
Black
Red
Green
Blue
Gamut
Color gamut ranged from 77.7% to 86.2% of NTSC
Color gamut is the range of possible colors that can be displayed. Typically this is expressed as a percentage of the NTSC color primaries.
Source: Mike Wilson (Westar)
28For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Typical Color Gamuts Relative to NTSC*
Red x y
Green x y
Blue x y
Relativegamut
Saturated .735 .265 .074 .834 .174 .005 155% NTSC .67 .33 .21 .71 .14 .08 100%
EBU .64 .34 .29 .60 .15 .06 71% CRT .625 337 .288 .603 .151 .063 69% PDP .648 .347 .242 .708 .147 .067 93%
Typical transmissive LCD .603 .331 .340 .566 .150 .130 50% High quality LCD .638 .340 .292 .611 .146 .085 70%
Reflective LCD .42 .33 .33 .42 .21 .28 7%
Projector .65 .35 .31 .67 .15 .04 73% OLED-Small molecule .65 .34 .30 .63 .17 .17 63%
OLED-Polymer .68 .31 .35 .61 .15 .12 70%
*Measured in (x,y) space
The use of LED backlights could enable LCDs to overtake PDPs
29For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Color Shift with Viewing AngleColor Dispersion Across View ing Angles (White)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7u'
v'
Color Dispersion Across View ing Angles (Black)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7u'
v'
Mod
el B
(IP
S)
Color Dispersion Across View ing Angles (White)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7u'
v'
Color Dispersion Across View ing Angles (Black)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7u'
v'
Mod
el A
(VA
)
Source: Mike Wilson (Westar)
30For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Color Gamut Standards
HDTV/sRGB
Adobe RGB
NTSC
ProPhoto RGBSMPTE C
PAL/SECAM
TV Standards
Other Standards
Source: Boscarel
31For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Gray-Scale Inversion
Inversion is another measure of viewing angle performance. Inversion, or reversal of gray-scale is an objectionable artifact
seen on many early LCD displays.
Sample Results – Gray Scale Inversion
GL
0.00050.000
100.000150.000200.000250.000300.000350.000400.000450.000500.000
-90°
-75°
-60°
-45°
-30°
-15°
0 ° 15 ° 30 ° 45 ° 60 ° 75 ° 90 °
Horz Viewing Angle
Lum
inan
ce (c
d/m
2)
0316395127159191223255
GL
0.00050.000
100.000150.000200.000250.000300.000350.000400.000450.000
-90°
-75°
-60°
-45°
-30°
-15°
0 ° 15 ° 30 ° 45 ° 60 ° 75 ° 90 °
Horz Viewing Angle
Lum
inan
ce (c
d/m
2)
0316395127159191223255
Model A (VA)
The good news… no inversionsSource: Mike Wilson (Westar)
Model B (IPS)
32For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Property A B C D E F
White shift 0.004 0.016 0.021 0.016 0.026 0.012
Red shift 0.034 0.039 0.029 0.027 0.026 0.023
Green shift 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.006 0.006 0.020
Blue shift 0.023 0.013 0.018 0.005 0.008 0.014
LCD Color Shifts at 10% Intensity
The color balance can be modified by control electronics
Gray Scale Control for RGB&W
Source: Mike Wilson (Westar)
33For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Response Time
Response times directly impact the quality of motion video. Slow response times result in blurred edges.Gray-to-gray response is much slower for LCD than black to white.
20 .. 2318 .. 2016 .. 1813 .. 1611 .. 13
9 .. 116 .. 94 .. 62 .. 40 .. 2
3/ 18/ 2004 1:40:53 PMWestar Display TechnologiesMax = 22.6ms From 143 To 128
Min = 5.3ms From 32 To 0
63 .. 7156 .. 6349 .. 5642 .. 4935 .. 4228 .. 3521 .. 2814 .. 21
7 .. 140 .. 7
3/ 19/ 2004 11:42:53 AMWestar Display TechnologiesMax = 70.6ms From 0 To 32
Min = 0.1ms From 239 To 255
Model A (VA) Model B (IPS)
Sample Results – Gray-Level Response Time
Source: Mike Wilson (Westar)
34For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Over-Drive
Most LCD TVs use over-drive to reduce gray-to-gray response time.
63 .. 7156 .. 6349 .. 5642 .. 4935 .. 4228 .. 3521 .. 2814 .. 21
7 .. 140 .. 7
3/ 19/ 2004 11:42:53 AMWestar Display TechnologiesMax = 70.6ms From 0 To 32
Min = 0.1ms From 239 To 255
63 .. 7056 .. 6349 .. 5642 .. 4935 .. 4228 .. 3521 .. 2814 .. 21
7 .. 140 .. 7
5/ 6/ 2004 3:45:56 PMWestar Display TechnologiesMax = 69.1ms From 0 To 32
Min = 0.1ms From 255 To 239
Over-drive OnOver-drive OffSource: Mike Wilson (Westar)
35For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Blurring Edge Width Measurements
Can use flashing backlights or insert black sub-framesSource: Hitachi
36For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Power Consumption
Source: Larry Weber
37For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Emissive Displays Have an Advantage
Energy need only be supplied to each pixel as required,but remember that switching currents on and off requires energy
PDP Power should be reduced by 30% for TV
Source: Pioneer
38For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Energy Flow in Liquid Crystal Display
Backlight efficiencyis ~15% (60 lm/W)
Transmission factor is ~ 3%
Corrections: 1: TFT array blocks 20-50% of the light2: Some of wrongly polarized light can be recycled
Overall efficiency is ~ 0.4% at ~1.6 lumen/Watt
39For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Energy Flow in Plasma Display Panels
Efficacy has been ~ 1.5 lumen/Watt
40For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Energy Flow in OLED
Stage Efficiency Loss Mechanisms Total Eff.
Power to pixel 90% Voltage conversionLine losses
90%
Over-voltage (8V/2.5V)
31% Drive TFTphoton energy mismatch
28%
Electron hole recombination
12% Triplets, charge transport,charge imbalance
3.3%
Light extractionfrom optical stack
20% Internal reflectionabsorption
0.67%
Absorption byelectronic structures
80% TFTs, bus lineselectrodes
0.54%
Contrast enhancement
55% Loss in polarizeror color filter
0.30%
Efficacy is ~ 1.2 lumen/Watt
41For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Single-Chip Projection
Screen and mirror losses notincluded
Source:MicroDisplay Corp
42For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Lifetime
Source: Larry Weber
43For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
But Don’t Ignore the Slim & Flat CRT
Source: Justin Lee (Samsung SDI)
44For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Manufacturing Costs
45For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
The majority of cost is now in components
Large Area TFT LCD Cost Breakdown
Depreciation13%
Indirect Expense 7%
SG&A 4%
Labor 4% R&D2%
Components70%
Future Gains Must Come from Component Costs
46For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
PDP Cost by Expense Type
Components73%
Depreciation8%
Labor6%
Overhead13%
ComponentsDepreciationLaborOverhead
Future Gains Must Come from Component Costs
47For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
32” LCD TV Component Costs
Breakdown of Material/Component Costs32” WXGA
Glass8%
CF19%
Polarizers15%
Backlight26%
Driver ICs6%
Other mats26%
GlassCFPolarizersBacklightDriver ICsOther mats
Better backlight technology is critical to LCD-TV development
48For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
PDP Components and Materials
Glass13%
Metal 9%
Dielectric4%
Barrier ribs5%
Other materials5%
Driver ICs19%
Other electronics26%
External filter19%
GlassMetal DielectricBarrier ribsOther materialsDriver ICsOther electronicsExternal filter
Reductions in cost of electronics and filter are essential
49For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Reducing Costs of LCDs
Further gains from larger substrates will be very difficultFirst forecasts of costs for 8th gen seem higher than 7th genEquipment suppliers will focus on enabling material cost reductionsLess waste – additive rather than subtractive patterningThinner layers (in-cell polarizers?)Repair of faults is critical at all stages
Most gains must come from materials & componentsLocalized productionMore efficient suppliersMore effective materialsBetter design
-Improved backlights-Eliminate the color filter
We need better packaging for small displays
50For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
The Home Run – No Color Filter
Why?•~4x increase in optical efficiency •Avoid cost of patterning CF•Reduce cost of backlight (perhaps by 75%)
How?•Stacked films – difficult to manufacture & control light losses •Microlens array – as in LCD projectors •Field sequential color – as in DLP projectors
51For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
LCD with Micro-Lens Array
Structure
13.3” XGA prototypeFrom IBM and IDTech
LEDs to give narrowerfrequency spread Diffraction grating
to separate colors
Need directed emissionfrom light guide
Authors recommendthe use of a
polarized light source
Source: IBM and IDTech (SID 2003 Int Symp, paper 43.1)
52For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Field Sequential Color
Requirements•Flashing backlights
•Easier with LEDs•Fast LCDs
•OCB?•Ferroelectric?•Ultra-thin TN layers?
•Faster drive electronics•Talk nicely to TI
Small displays have been producedby Samsung SDI & LGE
for phones and PDAs
Can this technology be implemented for large screens?
53For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Cost Reduction for PDP
Standardization of high-voltage electronicsInevitable with high-volume and industry consolidationPotential area of specialization for China or India or ….
Increase in efficiency of panelsFrom 1.8 lumens/Watt to 5 lumens/Watt
Improved printing techniques (ink-jet?)Bus linesPhosphorsDielectricsBarrier ribs????
Closer collaboration between panel and set makers
54For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Printing Bus Lines with Nano-Particle Inks
Source: Chuck Edwards (Cabot)
Source: Chuck Edwards (Cabot) Source: Masaaki Oda (ULVAC)
55For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.
Conclusion
Get ready for the battle of <$995 (H)DTVs
32” Slim CRT vs 32” LCD vs 42” PDP vs 50” RPTV
Probably at your local Walmart for Xmas 2006
For more details, see DisplaySearch reports
56For distribution to attendees only. Content remains the property of DisplaySearch.