Photos: LG's 15-inch OLED TV

(Credit: Erica Ogg/CNET)

BERLIN--Spotted in LG's enormous booth here at IFA: a razor thin OLED TV with a 15-inch screen.

That's still about half the size of the average person's LCD or plasma TV, but it's progress. Currently Sony is the only company that sells an OLED and its measures just 11 inches diagonally. LG will officially one up its rival when this hits the market in Korea first next year.

Called "The Object," this display is 0.1 inches thin and weighs in at just over 11 ounces.

See more after the jump.

LG's 15-inch OLED TV in profile.

(Credit: Erica Ogg/CNET)

[1812dave]

A 15" screen isn't just HALF the size of typical LCD or plasma.

DUH! A 15" screen has an area of about 96 square inches...a 32 has an area of about 437, for a difference of roughly 4 to 1.

So to say a 15" screen is HALF of a typical LCD/plasma is erroneous.

[sflocal]

Erica was referring to screen size, not area. Don't over-complicate it. If the average screen is 30" then stating the 15" as half that size is appropriate considering the context of the article.

[moretroops]

1812 Dave is right. The 15" screen is far less than half the "size" of a typical LCD. Factual statement. Not over-complicating it.

[sgoodell07]

in response to moretroops...Regardless of whether the math is correct or not, it is merely a point made so that the poster can sound smart, it actually has NOTHING to do with the article, nor does it have any actual impact on the technology itself, pertaining to the size of the unit.

ON topic...OLED is incredible, have seen it myself through a lucky break with the Distributor I work for. I cant wait for this to be purchase ready (ie. not $10000 for an 11" screen).

[Shaun822]

Diagonally, which is how TV's are measured, it is 1/2 the size of the average tv. Sure, that means 1/4 the viewing area but in the industry's standard measurement terminology it's 1/2 the size. It would make a good TV for an RV or a boat if it weren't outrageously expensive.

[Someone-else]

Nice to see more brands interested in OLED. It's not commercially viable yet, but it's getting closer...
Maybe 2 more years...

[Ricochet44]

Now hopefully this won't cost $2000 like a regular 50"+ lcd tv.

But it's so cool to see something like that. It's simply a work of art!

[EvanSei]

first of all wow that thing is thin, they are not really ready for the open market yet but they are close, they need to be bigger (screen wise) and they need to be more affordable (more like the new LED t.v.'s) but I have to say I would not mind owning one, I would be worried I might break it in half though, I mean really your not going to move it much but when you do it would be scary.

[iamwho]

Isn't it ironic that the cable is thicker than the screen itself?

[davidwarren]

It is ironic, to the point that, until something can be done to eliminate that kludgy box with the processing bits, focusing on the depth of the actual screen seems to be a bit silly.

whats the point of having a very thin screen for residential use....

[AdamB5000]

I agree. I'm not about to pay more for a tv that is a half inch thick versus a 4" thick tv. Once we hit the 4" mark, thickness is mostly moot. Just focus on a better picture and price reduction.

Not to knock this technology, though. It'll be nice if and when they get a 50" OLED tv to the $1k mark. Until then...

[jskrenes]

On my entertainment center or mounted on a wall, I hardly ever look at my TV from the side. So thickness on a traditional LCD or plasma is acceptable. But I am interested in two things: 1, hopefully this will push price pionts on LCDs and plasmas down a bit more, and 2, LED technology, especially bendable screens, has a lot of promise in mobile technology.

[speedvillain]

It's to bad OLED's lifespan is very short. I think I'll stick with Samsungs LED TV's that are just 1.2 inches thick.

[crositer]

Good news frol LG! Congrats!

http://www.oledgadgets.com