Sony Unveils Crazy Expensive 17-inch and 25-inch OLED Displays
Sony Unveils Crazy Expensive 17-inch and 25-inch OLED Displays
Posted 02/17/2011 at 7:11am
| by Paul Lilly
14
Comments
Print
The hype surrounding OLED technology has somewhat settled down in recent months, instead giving way to LED-backlit LCD displays that are cheaper to produce. Lest you forget completely about OLED, however, Sony this week announced (PDF) a pair of OLED monitors designed for professionals. The 17-inch and 25-inch monitors are part of Sony's new reference-grade BVM-E series and are supposed to be on par with CRTs in color accuracy.
"These new monitors are the next step in professional displays, providing end users with extremely high picture quality," said Gary Mandle, senior product manager at Sony's Professional Solutions of America group. "This is breakthrough technology for applications where visual performance and accuracy are paramount, offering an unbeatable combination of image reproduction, color accuracy, reliability, and stability."
According to Sony, these are the first monitors to boast Full HD resolution OLED panels with 10-bit drivers. Sony says you can expect deep blacks with high dynamic range, blur-free motion, a wide color gamut, and accurate picture reproduction. Professionals will have plenty of inputs to choose from with the BVM-E series, including 3G/HD/SD-SDI, HDMI, and DisplayPort.
The BVM-E250 will ship in mid April and the BVM-E170 in June, and if you can afford them, then definitely don't quit your day job. Ready for sticker shock? The 25-inch model will come priced at around ¥2.4 million ($28,900), and the 17-inch display at about ¥1.3 million ($15,700). Medic!
Image Credit: Engadget
More like this
14
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
Henskelava
February 18, 2011 at 6:40am
As a former video technition I can tell you that Sony owns the reference monitor market. These products are NOT for the consumer. These Sony TV's will not be at Best Buy. These are MONITORS for broadcast studios. Every studio has a few reference monitors . One or two for the video tech, 2 or 3 for the control room. They are used as reference mnonitors because somewhere in a studio they need to see what is really going out on air. These monitors are replacing a similar sony lcd product that cost about 20,000.
The fact that sony is making OLED the new reference standard points to OLED adoption in the future to the consumer market. Thats because the reference monitor is the standard by which the broadcast facility measures its product.
Again, these are in no way consumer products but soley for the use of broadcast facilities as a reference or set up tool.
sarmoti
February 17, 2011 at 5:17pm
$25K has been the average price for a reference grade broadcast/post-production monitor for the past 40 years. These are not really more expensive than the models they are replacing. You don't really think that the movies you see in the theater and network commercials/TV shows were color graded and QC'd on consumer tv's from Best Buy do you?
Asterixx
February 17, 2011 at 3:53pm
The first plasma TV I ever saw was on the wall at a local high-end electronics store a friend of mine worked at. It was made by Pioneer, measured 26 inches across the diagonal, and it cost one thousand dollars. Per. Inch. That's right: $26k for a non-HD 26" TV! Now, a mere 14 or 15 years later, I just bought a 50" Samsung 3-D plasma TV (albeit a 720p one, but my satellite box only displays in 720P anyway) for the grand sum of $599.
For that reason I've got faith that OLED will come way down in price. Either that or it'll go away entirely, because it simply does not offer enough to justify paying much more than plasma or LCD...
ShyLinuxGuy
February 17, 2011 at 2:30pm
Not. Worth. It.
Sony in the equation after all the bull**** they have been pulling lately with the PS3 hacking ordeal: Definitely. Not. Worth. It.
They'll find some way to rustle the consumer's feathers with something stupid, as always, like "You can't use non-Sony TV or monitor mounting kits with our products per the License Agreement." And then spend the effort to track down (and sue) purchasers of non-Sony mounting kits because they don't get the $500+ or so for the kit and blame the consumer on--drumroll--being involved in patent infringement per their patented mounting system. I wouldn't put it past them. Yes, I know the little example sounds very lame, but what do you expect from Sony?
Anyways...I never knew IBM was behind the dropping prices in LCDs and the respective manufacturing technologies. I just thought that it just gradually became cheaper to produce an LCD than a CRT--that, and it quickly became a commodity a while ago (and still is).
mofitgti
February 17, 2011 at 2:06pm
I am ordering a waterproof version for my shower, with touchscreen to i think lol
kevjohn
February 17, 2011 at 12:04pm
It's a rare day when Max PC complains about the price of hardware.
violian
February 17, 2011 at 11:58am
It'll definately come down in prices with time. When I was in H.S. (10 years ago), I remember wakling into Ultimate Electronics and drooling over the 42" plasma sets that were retailing for $12,000 a piece at the time. I never envisioned myself owning one because it costed like 4 times my car. Now you can get a 42" plasma set for like $400...lol.
someuid
February 17, 2011 at 10:45am
I wonder why they cost so much. LCD panels used to cost so much because of the high failure rates during manufacturing (1 in 10) until IBM came out with a new production process that dropped the failure rate to something like 1 in 100.
sarmoti
February 17, 2011 at 5:23pm
They cost so much because they are high end professional monitors with features and connectivity that are not needed in consumer displays. For example, they have 3G HD-SDI inputs and 4 card slots for extra connectivity. All this aside from the fact that they are produced to have the highest quality/accurate image on the market. Plus it's for the pro market which means that they'll only sell thousands of them which means all research/manufacturing costs have to be spread over a smaller amount of sales.
violian
February 17, 2011 at 12:03pm
I talked to an expert in this area a couple years ago - he was a flat-panel broker/middleman. Not only were the failure rates high during manufacturing, but something like 1 in 10 units would arrive on the dock from overseas broken. So in a sense, for every 10 panels, only 8 would make it to the consumer - as to the exorbitant prices during that time. It was either Samsung or Sharp that came up with the plastic panels that had a much lower chance of getting broken during shipping - as to why all panels are plastic these days instead of glass.
someuid
February 17, 2011 at 12:51pm
The process I'd read about concerning IBM was how they made the plastic panel that holds the liquid crystal. Apparently the old process involved rubbing the panel with velvet cloth to create channels in which the liquid crystal would fill and form that pattern we call pixels.
IBM found a way to do it with an electrical charge that was far quicker and more reliable.
Funny how two small changes brought the prices down so much.
Neufeldt2002
February 17, 2011 at 8:28am
I would imagine that with continued development the price will come down. Otherwise, I would like to see them in action, not that I can afford them, but still.
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
The gang discusses the GTX 690, Trinity, Ivy Bridge, Amazon, big-box stores, MMOs,...
This month's issue
Feature
Build a PC On Any Budget
Feature
Cloud Services Showdown
How-To
Encrypt Your External Drive
Build It
Upgrade an X58 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Original RickRoll Video Returns to YouTube After 24-Hour Copyright Hiatus http://t.co/MaH9Sxyy2 days 3 hours ago
- maximumpc: Corsair has decided not to go forward with its $78 million IPO, citing weak equity market conditions http://t.co/A5a4DAzj2 days 3 hours ago
- maximumpc: Want to work at Maximum PC? Our Online Managing Editor, Alex, is moving away, so we need a new one. http://t.co/9Z7JCh0E4 days 1 hour ago
