OLED Association
  • Home
  • Past Musings
  • Who We Are
  • FPD & OLED Market Reports
  • Board Members
    • Members
  • Join Us
  • Contact OLED-A
  • Evaluation
  • BOE, Tianma, TCL Report Strong Profits In 2021_03/27/22
  • Home
  • Past Musings
  • Who We Are
  • FPD & OLED Market Reports
  • Board Members
    • Members
  • Join Us
  • Contact OLED-A
  • Evaluation
  • BOE, Tianma, TCL Report Strong Profits In 2021_03/27/22
Search by typing & pressing enter

YOUR CART

Musing-Weekly Newsletter

Vertical Divider
Mattrix CEO Answers Our Questions on Its LTPS/IGZO Replacement
 
Max Lemaitre, Ph.D.,  CEO & Founder of Mattrix was kind enough to respond to the questions we raised last week regarding Ian Hendy’s Display Daily’s article on VOLET technology as a lower cost substitute for LTPS or IGZO.
 
Picture
Mattrix’s OLET combines current control with light emission by integrating the drive transistor, storage capacitor and light-emitting stack into one device. Mattrix claims by eliminating the compensation circuitry it reduces the # of TFTs and Cs  blocking the light in a top-emission active matrix OLED.
 
OLED-A: The article provided no specs on the reliably and mobility of the TFTs, a very strange way to discuss the subject.  
Max Lemaitre: Your point is well taken.  The article was intended to introduce Mattrix and our new prototype, and as such was intended for a non-technical audience.   

Since a-Si mobility is ~0.7 cm2.v*sec and LTPS is ~100 and IGZO ~20,  a-Si TFTs needs to be 20 to 100 times larger, which would be a limiting factor on resolution.  
Mattrix only uses a-Si for the switching-TFT.  

 
Max Lemaitre: Since it is only acting as a voltage switch it does need not be large relative to the pixel area.  In a conventional pixel, you would be absolutely correct, however the key innovation here is Mattrix’s vertical light emitting transistor (VOLET), which combines the drive-TFT, storage cap, and OLED into a single, highly stable, vertically stacked device.  This eliminates the need for a separate drive TFT and in-pixel compensation circuitry.  The result is a very simple,  two-component pixel: 1 a-Si sw-TFT and 1 VOLET.  

OLED-A: The larger TFTs, would reduce the aperture ratio does not increase it. 
The reduction in aperture comes from the elimination of a separate drive-TFT, storage cap, and compensation TFTs.
  

​Max Lemaitre: Of course we could increase the aperture ratio further by using an IGZO switching-TFT, but that is not necessary in the case of TV applications (using our technology).

OLED-A: It is unlikely that any panel maker would go the route of WRGB design for a smartphone due to the need for precise control, very high max luminance and absorbing 50% color filter losses. 
Max Lemaitre: Agreed.  This prototype specifically demonstrates how our technology would be implemented in a TV application.  We have another prototype which we are working on with Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology which demonstrates the mobile use case (more on this below).  

OLED-A: a-Si TFTs tend to suffer from wide variations in the gate voltage, which is a major problem for OLED’ drive TFTs, where the turn-on and turn-off voltages must be precisely controlled.
We do not use a-Si for the drive TFT for these very reasons.  Our VOLET device - which can be thought of as a gated-OLED or light emitting triode - is very stable (i.e. negligible Vth shift after 9 months of continuous operation) and allows us to avoid using a-Si for the drive TFT entirely.

OLED-A: The claim that backplanes contribute 20% of the yield loss is absurd, as it tends to be in the 1% range out of the total yield loss of ~20%. 
Max Lemaitre: I can’t comment on this with much authority, however in our discussions with panel makers, OLED backplane yields still appear to be a significant issue, especially for IGZO.

OLED-A: The technique would be less expensive and use less masks than LTPS or IGZO but converting an LCD fab to OLEDs needs 3/4 of the OLED capex for the deposition and encapsulation process and more space for a comparable capacity.  


Max Lemaitre: Agreed.  Our claim is simply that we reduce the total Capex costs as a result of the conversion, and additionally reduce opex cost by simplifying the manufacturing process.

OLED-A: Then there is the matter of LTPO and VRR, given that the cumulative number of OLED panels with LTPO  for Samsung and Apple will be 350m+ going forward. And it is likely that new tablets and notebooks will also use LTPO."


Max Lemaitre: Glad you point this out - we completely agree.  That is why our other prototype (with Samsung) is based on an IGZO switching-TFT combined with our VOLET.  This combination actually allows for even lower frequency operation (<0.2Hz) and requires less than 30% of the mask steps of LTPO.
 

    Subscribe to Musing

Submit

Contact Us

Barry Young
​barry@oled-a.org

Neo Kim
​neo@oled-a.org


Sungeun Kim
​sungeun@oled-a.org

Visit us at OLED-A.org



COPY RIGHT  2022 OLED ASSOCIATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DISCLAIMER