SED coming in 2006

oooh, pretty pretty.

I've been thinking about upgrading my 2001fp to a 2405fpw, but if something that cool is coming out next year, I think I will just hold that off...
 
OK.. that is some seriously cool stuff.
100,000:1 Contrast should please the photoshopers.
Less than < 1ms response should satisfy the gamers :)
 
Somehow I still feel that this is a superior technology...but I may be wrong. :eek:

Off-topic: Damn...does anybody know where I can get that awesome wallpaper from the demo screen? :eek:
 
SED is basically a flat CRT :p w00t uses the same idea as a CRT to produce the image(red/blue/green)
 
Anyone know what the power consumption is on these types, relative to lcds and crts?
 
wake6830 said:
Anyone know what the power consumption is on these types, relative to lcds and crts?
Click to expand...
Low power consumption is another main feature of the new display technology. SEDs convert electrical energy into light with a higher emission efficiency than other display types, resulting in power consumption that is two-thirds that of PDPs, and also surpasses CRTs and LCDs. In other words, SEDs are highly earth-friendly, meeting the needs of the times.
Click to expand...
http://www.canon.com/technology/display/

SED technology cuts average power consumption to half of that of a plasma panel or two-thirds that of an LCD of comparable size.
Click to expand...
http://www.homecinemachoice.com/cgi-bin/shownews.php?id=8328
 
1c3d0g said:
Somehow I still feel that this is a superior technology...but I may be wrong. :eek:

Off-topic: Damn...does anybody know where I can get that awesome wallpaper from the demo screen? :eek:
Click to expand...

The quote you gave is for a new software technology, whereas the SED is hardware. Still, I had missed it, and found the article interesting, thanks.

Albert
 
dodoei said:
so there will be radiation again with SED monitor?
Click to expand...

No. As it was said it's like a CRT (fast response time, no dead pixels, etc) with the benefits of LCD (slim, low power, etc). Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
dodoei said:
so there will be radiation again with SED monitor?
Click to expand...

Radiation from CRT monitors was a red herring anyway. The only reason it fucked up anyone's eyesight was because of the blurryness and low refresh rates compared to LCDs (Yes, I know, CRTs can technically have higher refresh rates than LCDs, but they work completely differently, so you can't compare).
 
Asian dub you raise a good point...normal crts have one gun so scaling is taken care of before the image is beamed. If there are individual guns for each subpixel as the article states, wouldn't this create the same problem lcd's have with scaling images to non-native res? Anybody know?

Anyways, cool tech, will get one to replace my LCD which really does have greyish blacks.
 
Yes; a SED screen would handle scaling similarly to LCDs. The pixels are static.
 
sounds cool. but not as thin as LCD (?) and response time not light speed like CRT (?)
 
Wikipedia.org said:
A Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display (SED) is a flat panel display technology that uses surface conduction electron emitters for every individual display pixel. The surface conduction electron emitter emits electrons that excite a phosphor coating on the display panel, the same basic concept found in traditional cathode ray tube (CRT) televisions. This means that SEDs can combine the slim form factor of LCDs with the high contrast ratios, refresh rates and overall better picture quality of CRTs.
Click to expand...

  • Response time : inferior to 1 ms
  • Contrast ratio : 100,000:1 (brightness is of 400 cd/m²)
  • Viewing angles : complete, 180° in each directions.

They are slim, and they are fast. A lot faster than LCDs you can rest assured. Not sure about pixel scaling though.
 
If anything, response time should be better. But response time isn't really the number of interest when you're talking of CRTs, it's refresh rate. And when we're talking refresh rate, SED won't be beaten.
 
will these SED displays come in small sizes like 23" or are they just gonna be like 40"+ or something
 
Araanor said:
If anything, response time should be better. But response time isn't really the number of interest when you're talking of CRTs, it's refresh rate. And when we're talking refresh rate, SED won't be beaten.
Click to expand...
That's my main concern about these future technologies. Right now I can stare at an LCD for hours at a time, no headaches at all. As soon as I'm looking at a CRT for 15 minutes (or less) my eyes get extremely tired and I get a headache soon after. Maybe I'm more sensitive than others, but I sure hope that whatever display technology wins, it better be easy on the eyes. :)
 
also how much is it going to cost?

edit: nvm "In principle the same than LCD and plasmas for the same diagonal."
 
1c3d0g said:
That's my main concern about these future technologies. Right now I can stare at an LCD for hours at a time, no headaches at all. As soon as I'm looking at a CRT for 15 minutes (or less) my eyes get extremely tired and I get a headache soon after. Maybe I'm more sensitive than others, but I sure hope that whatever display technology wins, it better be easy on the eyes. :)
Click to expand...
Exactly same thought here. It looks really promising but it must be without stress on the eyes!
 
1c3d0g said:
That's my main concern about these future technologies. Right now I can stare at an LCD for hours at a time, no headaches at all. As soon as I'm looking at a CRT for 15 minutes (or less) my eyes get extremely tired and I get a headache soon after. Maybe I'm more sensitive than others, but I sure hope that whatever display technology wins, it better be easy on the eyes. :)
Click to expand...
Look at it this way: a CRT has three electron guns, one for each type of subpixel (colour). SED has an individual electron emitter for every subpixel. This means that the speed at which an SED display can refresh is at first only limited by the hardware driving the display and then by the emitters themselves. There are no scanlines as with CRTs, so there should be no flickering due the refreshing process.

As for radiation, CRTs are forbidden by law to emit dangerous levels of radiation when properly assembled. In reality the background radiation is usually higher than the radiation emitted by CRTs. Walking outside in the sun is far more dangerous than sitting in front of a CRT display.

laxmiddi44 said:
will these SED displays come in small sizes like 23" or are they just gonna be like 40"+ or something
Click to expand...
Initially only 40+" displays as these are the most profitable, but smaller displays could appear on the market as soon as 2007/2008.
 
Albert Silver said:
The quote you gave is for a new software technology, whereas the SED is hardware. Still, I had missed it, and found the article interesting, thanks.

Albert
Click to expand...
Not true. These are HDR displays and hardware based.
 
Elledan said:
Look at it this way: a CRT has three electron guns, one for each type of subpixel (colour). SED has an individual electron emitter for every subpixel. This means that the speed at which an SED display can refresh is at first only limited by the hardware driving the display and then by the emitters themselves. There are no scanlines as with CRTs, so there should be no flickering due the refreshing process.
Click to expand...

Actually, CRTs have one electron gun, well, at least direct view CRTs, with three different colored sets of phosphors.

FP and RP CRT screens have three guns, one for red, green, and blue. But, I can't recall any FP or RP computer monitors ;) (eh, other than a 24" ill fated samsung model from years ago, but even then that might have been RP LCD).
 
Damn SEDs have native resolutions? Looks like I'll be using my NEC a while longer :(
 
NulloModo said:
Actually, CRTs have one electron gun, well, at least direct view CRTs, with three different colored sets of phosphors.

FP and RP CRT screens have three guns, one for red, green, and blue. But, I can't recall any FP or RP computer monitors ;) (eh, other than a 24" ill fated samsung model from years ago, but even then that might have been RP LCD).
Click to expand...
Color tubes use three different materials which specifically emit red, green, and blue light, closely packed together in strips (in aperture grille designs) or clusters (in shadow mask CRTs). There are three electron guns, one for each color, and each gun can reach only the dots of one color, as the grille or mask absorbs electrons that would otherwise hit the wrong phosphor.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube

Bop said:
Damn SEDs have native resolutions? Looks like I'll be using my NEC a while longer
Click to expand...
Fortunately, because SEDs do not have a backlight, and the phosphor dots have a natural 'anti-aliasing' feature, scaling to other than native resolutions should look a lot better than with an LCD or plasma display.
 
So you're saying the 'anti-aliasing' (fuzziness, more like) will carry over to SEDs? I'm not sure this is a good thing.
 
Araanor said:
So you're saying the 'anti-aliasing' (fuzziness, more like) will carry over to SEDs? I'm not sure this is a good thing.
Click to expand...
AA is 'fuzziness', AKA as 'smoothing out edges'.

One reason why I abhor LCDs is because of the ragged edges of lines and text, especially at non-native resolutions.

I realize that you're merely trolling, so I won't continue this discussion.
 
Um, what?

Anti-aliasing is the technique of minimizing aliasing when representing a high-resolution signal at a lower resolution.

Pixels overspilling in phosphor is not anti-aliasing, it's blurring or fuzziness. You could say it is a reduction of the quality of the signal. One of the vaunted advantages of LCDs is the sharpness, you'll see that be mentioned here and elsewhere.

Anyway, I don't think it will be as prominent in SEDs as with CRTs.
 
why would u ever run an lcd at non-native res?

the issue ur speaking of is present on all flat panels.. they suck at non native,,, which is why flat panel tvs are horrible, since who knows what res the input is.... especially now days with 1080i,720p,720i,480p,and sdtv all used on any given channel for any given show.

^^in response to ELLEDAN
 
Araanor said:
Pixels overspilling in phosphor is not anti-aliasing, it's blurring or fuzziness. You could say it is a reduction of the quality of the signal. One of the vaunted advantages of LCDs is the sharpness, you'll see that be mentioned here and elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Notice that I put anti-aliasing within quotes :)

What I meant was that in games, for example, that without AA there are these jagged edges present. Enabling AA makes these edges appear more smooth. Same when working on images in Photoshop. Since a phosphor layer has the tendency to slightly 'smear out' the image, the aforementioned jagged edges do not appear quite as jagged as with an LCD or plasma display.

Besides, sharpness isn't always good. SmoothType, or whatever it's called, which is present in Windows XP and up aims to compensate for this weakness of LCDs.

Anyway, I don't think it will be as prominent in SEDs as with CRTs.
Click to expand...
At the very least a SED display won't require nearly as much calibration as a CRT to get a sharp and properly balanced image.
 
8steve8 said:
why would u ever run an lcd at non-native res?

the issue ur speaking of is present on all flat panels.. they suck at non native,,, which is why flat panel tvs are horrible, since who knows what res the input is.... especially now days with 1080i,720p,720i,480p,and sdtv all used on any given channel for any given show.
Click to expand...
The LCDs they use at my school have a native resolution of 1024x, but they're set to a higher resolution. Small text on them definitely makes my eyes hurt, whereas on a halfway decent configured CRT this would pose no problem.

The reason why LCDs are used at higher than native resolution is because the native resolution is often considered too low.
 
whenever you want lcd-like sharpness, you've got to have fixed pixels.....
 
8steve8 said:
why would u ever run an lcd at non-native res?

the issue ur speaking of is present on all flat panels.. they suck at non native,,, which is why flat panel tvs are horrible, since who knows what res the input is.... especially now days with 1080i,720p,720i,480p,and sdtv all used on any given channel for any given show.

^^in response to ELLEDAN
Click to expand...
I could not agree more!

This is why I am constantly telling people that the only way you are going to get the best quality picture is to make sure the source res matches your native res (aka 1:1).
 
Elledan said:
The LCDs they use at my school have a native resolution of 1024x, but they're set to a higher resolution. Small text on them definitely makes my eyes hurt, whereas on a halfway decent configured CRT this would pose no problem.

The reason why LCDs are used at higher than native resolution is because the native resolution is often considered too low.
Click to expand...

You can't run an LCD at a higher res than it's native...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top