Micro-LED Displays

[@eirinym]

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.

[@molochi]

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.

[@operator8014]

No... it was because of the CRT's. My N64 looks awesome with AV cables on my nice oled. Better than ever before.

[@primus711]

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

[@EbonySaints]

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.

[@GeorgeMonet]

CRTs were necessarily big and expensive. You could not produce a 50 inch easily shippable CRT tv for $200 shipping included.

[@Semtex777]

illuminating

[@2drealms196]

brilliant

[@walid0the0dilaw]

...self

[@biketraintaxland]

2 mons ???

[@gljames24]

How is this 2 months ago? Patreon?

[@DRakeTRofKBam]

truly enlightening words

[@mfx1]

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.

[@dancoulson6579]

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.

[@OgbondSandvol]

@@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...

[@michaelmoorrees3585]

@@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.

[@anuardalhar6762]

@@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?

[@andrewallen9993]

@@anuardalhar6762 RS most certainly is!

[@douro20]

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.

[@jmd1743]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidophor That's the first jumbo tron technology. It was also used by NASA for their apollo control room.

[@chengong388]

yes but that's simply because of their insane brightness, the efficiency is still higher than both LCD and OLED.

[@reahs4815]

1MW? are you sure

[@douro20]

@@reahs4815 Yes for the largest displays it can be that high.

[@knurlgnar24]

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.

[@AdamS-nd5hi]

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

[@thor8086]

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?

[@blackbriarmead1966]

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

[@PWingert1966]

Its still just as far away. I expect we won't see mass market micro LED till at least 2040 if not 2050.

[@johnbillt466]

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.

[@tragile9108]

@@PWingert1966 No way, it will be before that.

[@PWingert1966]

@@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!

[@Draxis32]

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.

[@eduardoanonimo3031]

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...

[@johndawson6057]

@Zaydan Naufal why aren't more poat-80's inventions winning more Nobel prizes?

[@richr161]

@@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.

[@larryc1616]

​@@johndawson6057 like biology, medicine and chemistry too can take decades before its importance to mankind is uncovered and rewarded.

[@The_Ballo]

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)

[@JonMartinYXD]

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.

[@sunspot42]

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.

[@mcswato1]

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.

[@bricaaron3978]

@@sunspot42 *...but as LED displays improved..."* _LCD_ displays, you mean.

[@sunspot42]

@@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.

[@eirinym]

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.

[@OgbondSandvol]

I still proudly use a CFL LCD in the PC of my electronics' shop.

[@primus711]

Ccfl*

[@profdc9501]

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.

[@jmuench420]

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.

[@getsideways7257]

@@profdc9501 I also have one, but the colors are pretty skewed at this point.

[@proudsnowtiger]

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.

[@shmookins]

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.

[@louroboros]

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

[@don.timeless4993]

you don't know how much i'm waiting for Micro-LED tech

[@andytroo]

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.

[@sunspot42]

Was thinking the same thing. Perfect the easiest to produce color and then use quantum dots to produce the other two colors.

[@johndododoe1411]

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.

[@aquaneon8012]

Main issue is that blue qd leds still have lifetime issues. Time will tell if the lifetime can be improved quick enough.

[@lubricustheslippery5028]

@@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.

[@AD34534]

That sounds like the most plausible route that companies will take.

[@ancienttech4603]

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.

[@jooch_exe]

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.

[@donvanvilet8466]

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.

[@williamyeh3685]

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.

[@DctrBread]

not another word against CRTs. Its superior to LCDs in many respects.

[@ToTheGAMES]

No it is not.

[@DctrBread]

@@ToTheGAMES yes it is

[@sunspot42]

@@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.

[@brodriguez11000]

@@sunspot42 Well we are talking about micro-leds so going "pretty far up" is already implied.

[@sunspot42]

@@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.

[@gamingmarcus]

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

[@d00dEEE]

Ok, so I can count on having a micro-LED monitor about the same time my local nuclear fusion generator comes on line?

[@kensuiki6791]

Lmfao😂😂🤣🤣

[@kunka592]

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.

[@donvanvilet8466]

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.

[@donvanvilet8466]

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.

[@randallcromer66]

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...💯👍

[@Saturn2888]

This video finally explained to me _why_ it's so hard to get good yields on micro LED! Thanks :D.

[@oscartango2348]

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.

[@pauldelmonico4933]

Great analysis! Reminds me of my chemical engineering days ... without the math. Very much appreciated!

[@phookadude]

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.

[@stevenclark2188]

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.

[@kensuiki6791]

Yeah why won't they man.

[@Nightsd01]

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.

[@InvictraX]

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.

[@mikemmikem2758]

interesting video on a rather complex and potentially new and exciting technology. Just saw 2023 CES piece on Samsung exhibiting a Micro-LED set.

[@jairothevaca2719]

Your videos on chip manufacturing are always a joy. Would love one on OLED displays and Quantum Dots.

[@jasonmajere2165]

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.

[@biggityboggityboo8775]

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.

[@sunspot42]

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.

[@brodriguez11000]

@@sunspot42 Some display drawing tablets use Q-dots.

[@silva29]

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.

[@cerebralm]

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.

[@tamius-han]

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.

[@swecreations]

@@tamius-han Yeah they did, that part of the video is completely inaccurare

[@clarencegreen3071]

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.

[@cerebralm]

@@clarencegreen3071 we literally just said we prefer it lol.

[@JakeSDN]

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.

[@Raynorification]

CRT worked poorly? It took a long time for LCD to match them in overall quality.

[@joshieecs]

it still hasn't

[@kicapanmanis1060]

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.

[@NSS7]

Agree. Except for its weight and bulky size it is superior than LCD in almost every way.

[@Raynorification]

@@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)

[@DarthChrisB]

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.

[@Dave_the_Dave]

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.

[@rkan2]

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.

[@anonanous3129]

I've always noticed the overlap between CRT fans, Morrowind fans and clinical obesity.

[@tobore9559]

​@@anonanous3129 you made my day

[@miguelgallardo4504]

A CRT, while incapable of large sizes actually had the ability to create true black which and an LCD can not.

[@mysticmarble94]

Content is lit as always 💡

[@michaelbeckerman7532]

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.

[@Saturn2888]

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.

[@dominic.h.3363]

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?

[@LOCATlON]

no thought provoking questions please 😤

[@davidgunther8428]

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.

[@chefchaudard3580]

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.

[@JohnDobak]

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.

[@sawyerbergeron3288]

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

[@cheater00]

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...

[@EdS-c1n]

My LG 2017 55" OLED 1080P is still working fine in 2024

[@cheater00]

@@EdS-c1n it doesn't count if you use it half an hour per day every two weeks buddy

[@tristanwegner]

Leds did NOT free us from CRTs. For the first years for Desktop Monitors, the back light came from fluorescent tubes.

[@patrickdegenaar9495]

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.

[@brodriguez11000]

Big enough for a faux window.

[@patrickdegenaar9495]

@@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... 🙂

[@swecreations]

His description of CRT monitors is wildly inaccurate however, they had perfect blacks and instant response times.

[@Conservator.]

Love the humour mixed into these videos. That introduction was golden! 😁 (but there are many more hidden gems in the video).

[@spol]

It's a challenge they should overcome. It just might take longer than we expected.

[@PlayNeth]

I'd love to see a video from you talking about Laser-phosphor Displays, aka the next gen CRTs

[@timwildauer5063]

If you want to learn a bit more about dislocations (6:15), check out this video where you can see dislocations under a microscope. It's not quite the same elements, but the principle is the same. kzbin.info/www/bejne/m4q5f42do7Zrnac. The creator also has a few videos that go into great detail about how vapor deposition works.

[@alexlowe2054]

AlphaPhoenix is awesome. Good shoutout.

[@Randelgraft]

Just fyi, "The Wall" tv is probably a reference to an old sci-fi novel, "Fahrenheit 451".

[@binishulman8655]

4:58 'sloshing around'. This metaphor pleases me.

[@2dozen22s]

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?

[@Th3EpitapH]

fluidic self assembly is cool to the point that i hope it's the technique that ends up winning in the end

[@HansSchulze]

Ultrasonic fluid for placement...

[@andreamitchell4758]

@@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.

[@HansSchulze]

@@andreamitchell4758 Resonance is usually mass or size related, so that might not help.

[@tbullock79]

I don't think micro led TV's will ever be a mainstream thing.

[@jamesjensen5000]

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.

[@gljames24]

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.

[@dancoulson6579]

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.

[@hitmusicworldwide]

Cathode ray tube tech did do HD they were not as bad as you initially said they could have done 4k as well we shifted tech before they were developed commercially Should be pointed out that because these devices were so heavy, (the larger the screen , the thicker and heavier the glass ) we have most likely saved untold amounts of oil not having to ship all of that heavy display technology. In audition, because they are so much thinner and lighter more of it this display tech could be fit into smaller spaces. They are more efficient and use much less electricity. I would love to have someone calculatie how much the switch from CRTs to flat screen technologies has saved the environment and energy costs on all levels of the value chain.

[@techpriest4787]

They also have high response. Hence gamers sticking with CRT longer.

[@lfraser7128]

Yep, I’m still prefer a crt over anything else.

[@watchm4ker]

@@techpriest4787 Not exactly. They have near-zero response times when dealing with an uncompressed analogue signal, since all it needs is synchronization and amplification. But a digital video signal would still have to be decompressed and turned into analogue inputs for the beam.

[@ntabile]

One of the practical drawback is power consumption and bulkiness.

[@stepbruv8780]

Imagine 4K cathode ray screen weight around 100kg each

[@Dorothyinstead]

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.

[@jarosawzon4272]

OLED is just amazing.

[@godofdeath8785]

Based

[@gwho]

LMAO that's so fitting that a Korean company would be called Kimm lmao. In Korea, everyone is named Kim, even manufacturing companies AHHAAH (p.s. i'm korean)

[@aquaneon8012]

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.

[@swecreations]

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.

[@rayoflight62]

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...

[@byronwatkins2565]

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.

[@50PullUps]

RIP Nick Holonyak, inventor of the LED.

[@eIectrostatic]

One issue that adds to the elusiveness of micro-LED:s is the constant increase in TV resolution, which only adds to the difficulty. An 8k screen has far more pixels than an 1080p screen and a prospective 16k screen will have untold more. For micro-LED screens to become viable, LED miniaturization has to outpace resolution increases in TV:s and digital media.

[@Tymeshifter]

You don't see in 4k: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKmxc5x3i5mIpK8

[@Personaless]

In all honesty I hope resolution increases stop at 8k for consumer products. I have 77' 4k, and I can't imagine needing more than 8k at that size. And for someone that games as well, the hardware isn't even caught up to 4k yet.

[@Turboy65]

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.

[@chengong388]

I think today anyone in their right mind would just use an OLED if they really needed those last few milliseconds of response time.

[@ajohny8954]

Any updated thoughts on this?

[@aodhanmorrissey]

Great video as always. It's staggering the amount of useful information that's on your channel John, thanks for all your hard work.

[@ByWire-yk8eh]

We also had CCFLs.

[@DogeMultiverse]

Seems like pick and place is a poor approach to the problem. They should look into lithography doping techniques so that the leds can be "etched" in place. This would use similar technologies as mass producing transistors. One could make use of older generation nodes (100nm or more) to produce those leds. Size would be limited to the wafer size, unless you have a way to combine multiple wafers into one large screen

[@bacalarboats]

You completely missed PLASMA TVs

[@Justathought81]

Would love to know more about how OLED's are made

[@ewwwt]

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. :)

[@larryc1616]

And like OLED will cost $2k in 6 years

[@El.Duder-ino]

Excellent ep. thank you for making it!

[@Fahrenheit38]

CRT is still the best display

[@cedricdellafaille1361]

my dear lord, these videos are extremely informative

[@QuanrumPresence]

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? 😂😂

[@litewavve]

Human vision and hearing are very forgiving . Most people can easily live with passable quality without the urge to pursue the best. Micro-LED may be the next big thing in display technology, but it is not as dramatic as going from black and white to color as I experienced in my childhood. Giving all the challenges, I am only mildly interested when it may become reality.

[@nahometesfay1112]

Visual quality is only one advantage they should also last longer, be more efficient, more durable, and have quicker response times. I don't think it will dramatically change our experience, but I do think it will contribute to better products

[@nejihiashi]

It will have the same impact as going from B&W to colors especially for virtual reality, people will will have lifelike experiences

[@kokofan50]

Use a magnet to pick it up then drop it were you want it. Junk yards and micro-LEDs unite!

[@tarekullah342]

I think using RLCD is the better choice

[@middle_pickup]

Whoa whoa whoa. CRT's are awesome.

[@brad9529]

I must've missed the memo on Micro LEDs. I have never heard about this technology before, thank's for the learning experience :-)

[@03chrisv]

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.

[@AntneeUK]

I was using Sony Trinitron CRT monitors. It's only relatively recently that I've felt that panel tech has truly outperformed the quality IMO. There was nothing wrong with the quality of the tube

[@ExitusGSZ]

We're still not quite there yet. OLED is cutting it really close though.

[@kicapanmanis1060]

Yea in terms of resolution the new panels are all better but in terms of motion, nothing beats CRTs in smoothness.

[@forgotten_world]

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.

[@richmahogany1]

jesus sony had a fully functional microled in 2012? had no idea.

[@RedLeo-pf9yo]

My thoughts exactly.

[@hacc220able]

Thanks for condensing all of that egghead material to an understandable data stream - sorry for your headaches and bloodshot eyes. Thanks for sharing.

[@0neIntangible]

Blended matrix vapour deposition on substrate, with laser scanning and focused beam scattering on substrate via polarizer filters.... holographic effects.

[@OnionMad]

So I just watched this video of your and I have no clue what differs between micro-LED and OLED displays, other than the micros not being Organic.. though the micros are still grown so it seems they are quite organic after all......(??)

[@debochch]

LED size needs to go much smaller say 10uM. Then you can use 9 LEDs per sub pixel. If you have a 50% failure the you still have plenty spare LEDs. You just need to under power good pixels so you get the same brightness. If you are using parallel placement techniques then the 9 fold increase of LEDs won't matter.

[@htomerif]

Well, to be clear, its not just gonna be sapphire. Its gonna be like TFT on sapphire already, so you're already depositing at least as many transistors onto the sapphire as you have pixels. I'm failing to understand why the processes that have worked basically flawlessly for TFT on glass can't be applied AT ALL to depositing some different chemistry diodes onto sapphire (or glass or plastic or whatever). Like for real: wouldn't it be cheaper to have 3 separate, transparent TFT displays each made of a separate semiconductor substrate but done using TFT processes than it would be to pick n place 10 million anythings?

[@johnsamsungs7570]

I think you are a bit hash about CRT monitors and TV'S! Picture quality is very good especially the latest versions.

[@dewiz9596]

MAKES 4680 battery production look like child’s play

[@alexmartian3972]

Would be much more IMO clear / useful if you compared production issues with OLED since there are same size and placement.

[@henninghoefer]

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).

[@davidgunther8428]

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!

[@jackykoning]

Producing them at the exact same brightness is a fun challenge. Perhaps there is a way to grow blue in certain areas without growing the other areas and then you grow blue > green > red on your desired surface at the ideal temperatures. Doubt it tho. Or maybe we just have to make 100 million chips of the same color then laser the color into it somehow. Possibly by burning metals away. Still unsure if that would even work. I know LEDs change color if you briefly provide too much power to them but that is a permanent damage and it reduces the brightness. Yeah this shits complicated especially when you know nothing of how they are made and nothing of how they are powered. I was going to suggest something like using a perfect sample to grow crystals like using a diamond to grow a larger diamond. The new diamond will take the exact structure of the donor diamond. Even if that was possible how will you power it?