Monday, February 21st 2011

Sony Intros 17-inch and 24-inch Trimaster EL OLED Monitors

Sony launched 17-inch and 24-inch Trimaster EL professional-grade monitors, which are based on the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology. OLED is not to be confused with LED-backlit LCD, which is merely LCD with LED illumination instead of CCFL. OLED is a kind of a flat-panel display technology in which electroluminescent organic compounds spread across a film generate images. Hence, OLED provides far greater picture clarity, and eliminates pixellation, a problem encountered with low pixel-density LCD displays. OLED-generated images are more CRT-like in terms of fidelity. Sony’s new Trimaster OLED monitors are targeted at the broadcasting industry and professional studios that seek bleeding-edge image quality.

Both Trimaster OLED monitors feature resolutions of 1920 x 1080 (full-HD), with 10-bit drivers, 100 cd/m² brightness, and 178° viewing angles. Display inputs include HDMI, DisplayPort, and SDI, which is used in professional development houses. Carrying the model numbers BVM-E250 and BVM-E170, they will cost $28,900 and $15,710, respectively.

Source: FlatPanels HD
Add your own comment

63 Comments on Sony Intros 17-inch and 24-inch Trimaster EL OLED Monitors

#1
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Many Thanks to BumbleBee for the tip.
Posted on Reply
#2
laszlo
wow i just wish two 0 dissapear from price
Posted on Reply
#3
BumbleBee
OLED will be in homes soon enough.
Posted on Reply
#4
LAN_deRf_HA
I think OLED has stalled out. I'm more intrigued by QLED. Same color properties at lower cost and power.

Did anyone else mistake those monitors for speakers?
Posted on Reply
#5
Bo$$
Lab Extraordinaire
by: LAN_deRf_HA
I think OLED has stalled out. I'm more intrigued by QLED. Same color properties at lower cost and power.

Did anyone else mistake those monitors for speakers?
yep, i did
QLED is still not fully mainstream yet, but give it some time :)
Posted on Reply
#6
erixx
subwoofers yes ;)
Posted on Reply
#8
thiskar
almost 30 grand, now thats a bargin!
Posted on Reply
#9
Completely Bonkers
At those prices we should have seen 2560x1600 at 17" at a minimum, and finally have high pixel density displays just like we are seeing on mobile phone devices. But 1920x1080 is just laughable, esp. at those prices.

WHY-OH-WHY do we see "better" display technology in a consumer grade Apple iPhone that we see for specialist professional monitors for PCs? It beggars belief! Good grief!
Posted on Reply
#10
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Good: Sony is back in the Monitor Business.
Bad: The prices...
Posted on Reply
#11
Swamp Monster
I was hoping for OLED monitors to replace LCD, but I also heard that they had problems with longetivity of blue and green color LED's. And the price is toooooo much. I think too much for even professional monitors.
Posted on Reply
#12
RejZoR
That are one freakin ugly devices...
Posted on Reply
#13
HalfAHertz
Well 1kg of gold goes for about 49k $, so you could say that this pretty much costs its own weight in gold.
Posted on Reply
#14

Let's make it last more than 5 years and cut 2 zeros from the price. Then I will be interested. ;)
Posted on Edit | Reply
#15
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: Swamp Monster
I was hoping for OLED monitors to replace LCD, but I also heard that they had problems with longetivity of blue and green color LED's. And the price is toooooo much. I think too much for even professional monitors.
Me too. It feels like it has not moved at all in the years it's been talked about.
Posted on Reply
#16
erek
anyone notice how OLED displays are actually similar to CRTs in form factor? they're very thick... anyone else catch that they are not thin like LCDs?
Posted on Reply
#17
laszlo
by: erek
anyone notice how OLED displays are actually similar to CRTs in form factor? they're very thick... anyone else catch that they are not thin like LCDs?
oled is thinner than lcd
Posted on Reply
#18
erek
i have seen pictures of some OLED TVs that were built just like a flat screen CRT, and also thinner than LCDs... i don't understand it
Posted on Reply
#19
TurdFergasun
by: Completely Bonkers
At those prices we should have seen 2560x1600 at 17" at a minimum, and finally have high pixel density displays just like we are seeing on mobile phone devices. But 1920x1080 is just laughable, esp. at those prices.

WHY-OH-WHY do we see "better" display technology in a consumer grade Apple iPhone that we see for specialist professional monitors for PCs? It beggars belief! Good grief!
why in the hell would the broadcast industry want a higher res than is available to broadcast? if they're using them as confidence monitor's they're going to want to see what they're broadcasting, or sending to tape, not how much they can brag to their materialistic friends about their pixel density.
Posted on Reply
#20
RejZoR
Why they have to look like 2 black bricks!?
Posted on Reply
#21
Completely Bonkers
by: TurdFergasun
why in the hell would the broadcast industry want a higher res than is available to broadcast? if they're using them as confidence monitor's they're going to want to see what they're broadcasting, or sending to tape, not how much they can brag to their materialistic friends about their pixel density.
You are quite right young whippersnapper! I should have said "4K", or 3840x2160, because THAT is what a broadcaster wants: 4 broadcast feeds shown simultaneously, OR, to display the "emergent standard" for digital production/post-production: 4K

Thanks for pointing that out! Because at $30,000 why the hell would they spend that money on yesterdays specifications!:pimp:
Posted on Reply
#22
TurdFergasun
prol the same reason studios drop 5-10k on curret 1080p 24-26 ips panels used as confidence monitors. when they want multi feeds on the same 1080p monitor, they can do that with the video distribution amps they use. 4k is nowhere near broadcast now or in the mentionable future considering it's just becoming common in the theatres, let alone close to being aworthwhile broadcast standard, shit ppl barely have the notion of 1080p. this is overpriced for a 24 inch 1080p i'm not denying that, it isn't however for a budding new display technology. it's meant for a completely different demographic that do not share your same demands. if you can read between and on the lines, you'll see that.
Posted on Reply
#23
wahdangun
wow, crt is back, can't wait for price drop, i'm sick with lcd right now, i want perfect dark
Posted on Reply
#24
wolf
Performance Enthusiast
I'm just interested to see an OLED or QLED monitor in person so I can judge for myself wether I think theyre going in the right direction.

also agree with the comment on pixel density, its getting outrageous on mobile devices with 3-6" screens... I want a 21.5" monitor with 2560x1440+ pixels.
Posted on Reply
#25
Completely Bonkers
by: TurdFergasun
prol the same reason studios drop 5-10k on curret 1080p 24-26 ips panels used as confidence monitors. ...snip
Agreed. New tech targetting at a very specialist market, produced in the tens or hundreds not thousands, there are no economies of scale.

I guess the news just got PR'd-over-ethernet to TPU, when TPU members would get much more excited about products like this: http://www.chimei-innolux.com/opencms/cmo/products/medical_display/products_medical_R278D1.html?__locale=en

27", IPS, 3840x2160

Baby, want one of those. I'd even be happy with it's 21" little sister at 2560x2048. WAIT 5:4? Nice
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment