Ultrahigh‐resolution micro light‐emitting diode (LED) displays are emerging as a viable technology for self‐emissive displays. Several of the critical issues facing micro LED displays with millions of pixels are fidelity, process control, and defect analysis during LED fabrication and transfer. Here, we investigate two non‐destructive test methods, photoluminescent and cathodoluminescent imaging, and compare them with electroluminescent images to verify LED fidelity and evaluate these methods as potential tools for defect analysis. We show that utilizing cathodoluminescent imaging as an analysis tool provides a rich data set that can identify and categorize common defects during micro LED display fabrication that correspond to electroluminescence. Photoluminescent imaging, however, is not an effective method for fidelity analysis but does provide information on dry‐etching uniformity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Behrman et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: