CRT quality screen in an LCD size (SED?)

Yes, there are a few threads here about it. I bought my 24" fw900 crt to hold me over till these start coming out next year.
 
Hope you are very wealthy, they are going to be pricey for at least a year at/after launch... from 3X to as much as 5X as much as LCD will be at launch. It will be 3 years before they get really 'affordable' for the masses. That's the reason I bought my LCD just now... top of the pack performance at a decent price will hold me over until SED comes down to a reasonable price point (in my book at least).
 
So will the monitors scale well like CRTs, and are there any monitors out using this new tech?
 
Next year is very optimistic, I read mass production of these won't be til 2010. They will appear in HDTVs initially, being it is a 100x larger market.
 
There were threads saying that OLED and SED were just around the corner 18 months ago when I got my HP 23" along with many others. There is little doubt that some vastly superior technology will eventually arrive to displace LCD, but there's no evidence it is imminent. In the mean time there are some pretty good monitors out there.

oc
 
Xaeon said:
Why does no one mention the Brightside HDR technology in these threads? From what the company is saying, it sounds like it'll blow SED out of the water.
Click to expand...
Because it won't. HDR LCDs still suffer from all the other problems of LCD technology: ghosting, large-area sparkling, viewing angles, color rendition, etc. SED is miles ahead.

GNNR |AVault| said:
they are going to be pricey for at least a year at/after launch... from 3X to as much as 5X as much as LCD will be at launch.
Click to expand...
No, the first panels will be 55" HDTV sets, and they'll be approximate the same cost as competing LCD and Plasma sets. This is straight from the Canon-Toshiba alliance.

Next year is very optimistic, I read mass production of these won't be til 2010
Click to expand...
Incorrect. SED sets were displayed at CES this year. Mass production begins in a few months for Japan, and next year for the US.
 
Incorrect. SED sets were displayed at CES this year. Mass production begins in a few months for Japan, and next year for the US.

Toshiba is aiming for a late launch this year in North America or at least that's what their plan was last month. Prices are expected to be very competitive with plasma/lcd possibly even a bit cheaper.
 
masher said:
Because it won't. HDR LCDs still suffer from all the other problems of LCD technology: ghosting, large-area sparkling, viewing angles, color rendition, etc. SED is miles ahead.
Click to expand...

I'll give you that it will suffer from problems such as ghosting, but I thought incredible colour reproduction was the biggest selling point of the HDR tech. As for the other things, lcd panel manufacturers are constantly improving in those areas. I'm going to take a wait and see approach to these two techs, but I personally wouldn't discount HDR quite as easily as you did.
 
Xaeon said:
Why does no one mention the Brightside HDR technology in these threads? From what the company is saying, it sounds like it'll blow SED out of the water.
Click to expand...

Honestly, they should, at least as often as SED or OLED is brought up....But I don't think many people consider them relevant at this point because last I heard, they retail for around $50,000....That's just ridiculously expensive at a whole new level, and I'm sure even most people who sprung for plasmas wouldn't consider paying that much. Or they'd get a nice front projector instead :p....But they do have something there with HDR, if it were only cheaper...Maybe they could incorporate some of its features into other technologies also...an HDR SED perhaps??
 
people saying SED will be so much more expensive than LCD obviously havent been paying attention. It has been repeatedly noted by everyone involved with SED at any high level, that they expect to enter the market competitive to LCD. You dont get market penetration at 3 to 5 times your competitions cost, when your production cost is the same or even lower.
 
I heard about it.

Guys, by the time these come, will lcd technology be even better than today? Will these display really replace lcds? And, What is the dot pitch on these displays, better than lcds?
 
stopmenow said:
I heard about it.

Guys, by the time these come, will lcd technology be even better than today? Will these display really replace lcds? I don't think so.

And, What is the dot pitch on these displays, better than lcds? I don't think so. Any one know?
Click to expand...

Uh yes, these will replace LCDs (and pretty much any other current flat panel display tech). The current prototypes basically blow anything out of the water. And a dot-pitch not better than LCDs? That's a good one :p

IMO, LCD has it's applications: laptops, need for small but cheap display that doesn't suck lots of power, etc, but the technology for home theater just isn't there.

Someone asked about non-fixed resolutions like a true CRT... if I rememember correctly, SED panels will have a fixed native resolution so they aren't like CRTs in every respect, but scalers are getting better and better and I don't think that one negative is going to outweigh the overwhelming positives SED has going for it.
 
Xaeon said:
I'll give you that it will suffer from problems such as ghosting, but I thought incredible colour reproduction was the biggest selling point of the HDR tech.
Click to expand...
No, high dynamic range is the selling point of HDR...a totally different area, altogether.

As for the other things, lcd panel manufacturers are constantly improving in those areas.
Click to expand...
SED doesn't need to improve, however. It's already there. And no matter how much LCDs improve, its still a backlit, non-emissive technology and will always suffer from those shortcomings.

And while LCDs are improving, SED will as well. The emitters can be densely packed-- 300 dpi or more. That means 24 inch monitors with 6000x4500 resolution and up. Display lifetimes of hundreds of thousands of hours, limited only by phosphor life.

And here's the *real* death knell for LCD. SED technology is inherently much simpler. The emitters themselves can be screen-printed...add a glass substrate, a little control logic, and you're done. In five years, I expect SED displays to be substantially cheaper than LCD.

With OLED squeezing the low end, and SED the high end of the market segment, I expect that LCD technology will vanish entirely within a decade.
 
Synful Serenity said:
...Maybe they could incorporate some of its features into other technologies also...an HDR SED perhaps??
Click to expand...
SED is inherently high dynamic range, higher than CRTs even, since individual pixels don't need to be overdriven to the same level. Contrast ratios of several hundred thousand to one are typical.
 
Blue color lifespan? Not a problem. SED uses phosphors like in CRTs, not organic compounds like OLED.
 
Masher, I was sure HDR was closely related to colour reproduction. If the HDR display can render 48-bit colour (281 trillion colours), wouldn't that mean the colour reproduction would be superior?

(Seriously, I'm asking you to explain it if this is not how it works.)
 
Xaeon said:
Masher, I was sure HDR was closely related to colour reproduction. If the HDR display can render 48-bit colour (281 trillion colours), wouldn't that mean the colour reproduction would be superior?

(Seriously, I'm asking you to explain it if this is not how it works.)
Click to expand...
No, its a good question. HDR uses more bits to encode color data, which allows-- in theory-- more colors to be represented. It doesn't really impact color rendering accuracy, however (other than the removal of a tiny amount of quantization error). Those extra bits allow a far higher range of luminance though. Meaning colors can be displayed over a wider brightness range-- brighter whites, and darker blacks.

Color accuracy on an LCD is inhibited by a few factors. Its very difficult to get a consistent backlight across the entire panel...luminance and even chroma can vary from place to place. In that case, it doesn't matter how accurate your data representation of the colors is...your backlight is skewing the results. Also, there is an angle-dependent factor for the panels themselves. Viewed from different angles, the transmissibility changes, and so do the colors.

SED doesn't suffer from these problems. Its an emissive technology, so there is no angle dependence. And color rendition on phosphors is as good as it gets.
 
Considering the nature of the backlighting in the HDR display, would it suffer from backlight skewing the colours? I understand the other things you mentioned can throw it off too, making it something of a moot point, but I would think the backlighting at least would be a huge improvement over cold cathode backlights.
 
Yes, I haven't seen one in action, but its my understanding the HDR LCDs use a matrix-driven array of ultrabright LEDs in place of cold cathodes. That's part of the reason for the very high cost.

Of course, this begs the question of why this doesn't compete with SED. The answer is (besides adding even more complexity and cost to the LCD), the end result is still slightly inferior to an emissive-based phosphor solution.
 
inotocracy said:
So will the monitors scale well like CRTs, and are there any monitors out using this new tech?
Click to expand...

I have not read anything really read anything regarding this. I think that SEDs will still have a native resolution since they're supposed to use fixed pixel size panels. However, hardware scaling improves over time, so I don't think it will be as bad. You do enjoy all the other benefits it inherits from CRTs (high contrast ratio, fast refresh), mixed with the form factor and power usage of flat panel displays.

SEDs, OLEDs, whatever. I just want one of these new techs in my hands now!

(Toshiba announced during the CES conference that the first SEDs to hit retail would be the middle of this year).
 
BillLeeLee said:
I think that SEDs will still have a native resolution since they're supposed to use fixed pixel size panels
Click to expand...
SED has a native resolution, yes, and the first panels will suffer from scaling issues just like LCD. However, Toshiba has indicated no problem with reaching extremely dense pixel counts, so later displays may have native resolutions so high that scaling is no longer an issue. If your scaler has a 6000x4500 grid to work with, you can make anything look good.
 
Sounds like SED has some major advantages, but how does it compare on power consumption and eye strain? I was under the impression those two were big advantages the LCDs had over CRTs...
 
masher said:
Yes, I haven't seen one in action, but its my understanding the HDR LCDs use a matrix-driven array of ultrabright LEDs in place of cold cathodes. That's part of the reason for the very high cost.

Of course, this begs the question of why this doesn't compete with SED. The answer is (besides adding even more complexity and cost to the LCD), the end result is still slightly inferior to an emissive-based phosphor solution.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Thanks very much for answering my questions. As to cost, I think it is partially attributed to them currently making all the displays in-house. Also, they are having problems with heat from all the LEDs, which means they have to put watercooling into these early models. I think they are trying to license the technology to other manufacturers.

As I said thought, it's a moot point if the ONLY thing it does better than SED is HDR and contrast ratio. Thanks again.
 
I remember seeing some pictures of SED in action at CES, and one thing that perplexed me was that some of the photos showed noticeable scan lines. I saw one comment that said something to the effect that simultaneously lighting all of the pixels in an SED display would require too much power, so only a subset of the pixels would be powered at any one time. Since there are people here in this thread that seem to know what they're talking about, I was hoping someone could confirm or deny this rumor.

Also, one of the principal annoyances of my plasma television is the constraint placed on luminance as the average picture level increases (secondary to power restrictions). Will SED be able to display high-brightness images with reasonable power requirements?
 
Ohji said:
I remember seeing some pictures of SED in action at CES, and one thing that perplexed me was that some of the photos showed noticeable scan lines...
Click to expand...
Any matrix-addressed display needs to be scanned a row (or column) at a time. Remember the first LCD displays? They were "passive matrix". Each pixel didn't latch state information...they just were quickly scanned through, and refreshed before the pixel could relax too much. Of course, that caused fading and far less contrast.

The first SED displays will be the same way. It's not a power issue, its an addressing issue. But since pixels are emissive, the "fading" between each refresh cycle is towards blackness, not whiteness...meaning its not really noticeable. After all, modern CRTs can only address one pixel at a time, whereas an SED display can address an entire row at once.
 
Skipper007 said:
Sounds like SED has some major advantages, but how does it compare on power consumption and eye strain? I was under the impression those two were big advantages the LCDs had over CRTs...
Click to expand...

The eye strain is caused by the refresh rate. In crt's a small number of electron guns have to shoot a very large number of pixels, so it has to constantly refresh the screen. With SED there is one gun for each color on the pixel. So it should be able to have the same refresh advantage over CRT tech.

As for power consumption, LCD's don't have that much of an advantage over crt, the crt's just put out more heat. The SED's should be more efficient because they don't have to use magnets to aim the beams, which simplifies things.
 
TheTMan said:
With SED there is one gun for each color on the pixel. So it should be able to have the same refresh advantage over CRT tech.
Click to expand...
Read above. SED has to refresh also...though, due to its ability to address an entire row at once, it should support much higher refresh rates.

The SED's should be more efficient because they don't have to use magnets to aim the beams, which simplifies things.
Click to expand...
Also, the electron emitters are much closer to the phosphor, meaning you need a lower acceleration voltage.
 
masher said:
SED has a native resolution, yes, and the first panels will suffer from scaling issues just like LCD. However, Toshiba has indicated no problem with reaching extremely dense pixel counts, so later displays may have native resolutions so high that scaling is no longer an issue. If your scaler has a 6000x4500 grid to work with, you can make anything look good.
Click to expand...


Me wants! :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top