Sony Crystal LED

You know what, that looks brilliant. You get rid of a lot of the problems with LCD. Low power, super fast TRUE refresh rates should easily be possible (120Hz+), no ghosting/smear, superb contrast, brightness, it essentially has built in "local dimming", black levels would be phenomenal, super thin, long life.

A true LED TV. If you think about it, does this display technology even have any negative attributes? Maybe price? This would make for one awesome TV set. Not sure how small they can make those LED's though for something like a high dot-pitch computer monitor. Those would be some super tiny three LED's per pixel! Almost talking like microscopic LED's.
 
This has already been done, sort of, it's called plasma. Same idea, different emitter type. I noticed in the closeups during the video that it looks pretty low res (maybe?), and had a visible screen door effect (ala SDTV or 720p plasmas). Plus this isn't happening for at least 2 years development time according to the interviewer (most likely more).

Concept is good, but don't expect it soon. Also consider this may not scale to smaller displays, just like plasma, and who knows about mfg cost, power usage, weight, fragility, etc. Only thing is that direct displays like that probably have very fast response time.
 
This has plenty of benefits over plasma. Mega heat, power use, weight and pixel size to name huge negatives of Plasma.

And everyone knows you cannot judge picture quality of a display when being video recorded, common. He already said in the video it is 1080P, just like any other TV set.
 
plasma has not given off 'mega heat' in quite some time now. And power has come down in use every year with each new model.
 
,H-2-322022-3.jpg


"On Tuesday Sony said that it has developed the industry's first 55-inch Full HD self-emitting display using LEDs as the light source. Called the Crystal LED Display, it uses Sony’s "unique methods" to mount ultrafine LEDs in each of the Red-Green-Blue (RGB) colors, equivalent to the number of pixels -- meaning the company uses approximately six-million LEDs to create a Full HD display.

"The RGB LED light source is mounted directly on the front of the display, dramatically improving the light use efficiency," Sony said. "This results in images with strikingly higher contrast (in both light and dark environments), wider color gamut, superb video image response time, and wider viewing angles when compared to existing LCD and plasma displays, with low power consumption. Furthermore, due to the display’s structure, the “Crystal LED Display” is also ideal for large screens."

Sony is currently showing a prototype display at CES 2012 in Las Vegas. It has a brightness of approximately 400 cd/m², a viewing angle of approximately 180 degrees, and a contrast of "more than measurable limit values." The color gamut is also "more than 100-percent compared to NTSC (xy)." When compared to existing LCD displays from Sony, the prototype boasts approximately 3.5 times higher contrast in light environment, approximately 1.4 times wider color gamut, and approximately 10 times faster video image response time.

Sony said it will "work conscientiously" to bring the Crystal LED Display to market while also continuing development and commercialization of organic light emitting diode (OLED) displays."


I think this shows a lot of promise! 10-times faster response time, could we be looking at CRT like speed and smoothness in the future?
 
Since Samsung/LG's OLED is pretty vague about response time, I'm more interested in this crystal LED. Definitely suitable for gaming. I'm tired of ghosts and low refresh rate. Would be great if Sony makes smaller screen for PC monitor.
 
i saw this at ces, one of the better displays there.

best choices at ces was this display, the panasonic 2012 plasma, and the sharp 8k display.
 
TheBuzzer said:
i saw this at ces, one of the better displays there.

best choices at ces was this display, the panasonic 2012 plasma, and the sharp 8k display.
Click to expand...

How did the 2012 plasma look compared to the LED display and the older version plasma's?
 
To make one of these with 3840x2400 resolution would require 27,648,000 LEDs. I don't see that being economically viable ever.
 
yea, it seems like it would be pretty expensive. what happens when they start burning out? will the pixels start blacking out?
 
Hopefully we'll see them sooner than later. But I thought Sony was out of the oled game...
 
illli said:
yea, it seems like it would be pretty expensive. what happens when they start burning out? will the pixels start blacking out?
Click to expand...



I'm not worrying about this. If they manage to pull this off and keep the heat down, their lifetime should be longer than OLEDs. To my understanding anyway.


Hopefully we'll see them sooner than later. But I thought Sony was out of the oled game...
Click to expand...


They are still keeping one toe in OLED camp I think. This isnt OLED though, these are the good old leds in microsize.

Sony TVs in general are not doing so well however, so this tech is kinda Sonys last change to prove everyone that they still got it. Old kings of Trinitron days bringing a direct competitor to OLED tech. I am personally keeping my fingers crossed that this turns out something good.
 
I am even more excited about this tech than Oled. It has almost all positive display attributes and virtually no negatives.
 
I'm guessing most of the LED cost is the packaging. This is promising because it's been made and so has the competitive technology. Both techs also have a "sexy" factor due to power savings and thinness compared to a current tech.
 
i was totally attract by this heat discussion. we all know, as tech developed LED series including displays and LED lighting like LED spotlights will have a decrease of cost.thus a decrease of price is expected.
 
Is there a chance of backlight bleed with this LED system? If there is, this tech sucks compared to OLED.
 
The LED's are the light and the pixels in one... they are not a backlight. When there is an RGB value to be displayed, the LED is on, when it is (0,0,0) - black, the LED turns off. It is just like OLED.
 
There is no TFT film. If you know what backlighting bleeding actually is, you'd know that backlight bleeding is impossible with this technology.

I have no idea why people find it so hard to understand this technology. Perhaps because its Sony and everyone hates Sony but remember that Sony has, and still, makes some pretty mean high end hardware.
 
tommye said:
There is no TFT film. If you know what backlighting bleeding actually is, you'd know that backlight bleeding is impossible with this technology.

I have no idea why people find it so hard to understand this technology. Perhaps because its Sony and everyone hates Sony but remember that Sony has, and still, makes some pretty mean high end hardware.
Click to expand...

You can blame it on the false advertising and fraud that has called every single LED-backlit LCD for the past 2-3 years a "LED display".

As far as SONY, they were at their height during the Trinitron era. I'm not sure if they can ever get back to that. 90's were the time of killer SONY CRT's, they would have to invent something pretty amazing (like this Crystal LED) and commercialise it to get in the same market position as before. Their current management seems pretty whack sadly.
 
quantum112 said:
The LED's are the light and the pixels in one... they are not a backlight. When there is an RGB value to be displayed, the LED is on, when it is (0,0,0) - black, the LED turns off. It is just like OLED.
Click to expand...


Indeed. There is no backlight that would bleed, the RGB leds that create the picture are their own lightsource in this tech.
 
As others have said, cost is the only real factor. There isn't any new technology here, only cost reductions for the LEDs, and in theory this should be a nearly "perfect" display in the sense that it is 1:1 with the content data.

Also, I saw a comment where someone mentioned that plasmas don't heat up a room any longer. My 2010 model sure does. Not to the extent of older models, but it still raises the room temperature by several degrees.
 
There is no back light, the LED's are surface direct view.
 
Crystal LED vs Plasma high end 3840x2160 TVs might be an interesting format war in a few years. I still think it's going to be too expensive for monitors though.
 
brod said:
Crystal LED vs Plasma high end 3840x2160 TVs might be an interesting format war in a few years. I still think it's going to be too expensive for monitors though.
Click to expand...



Plus for monitor they would have to make the leds so ridiculously small if they would want to cram them into 20"-30" screen without losing resolution to below 1080p levels. I hope that atleast 32" would be doable. Would change my current TV/Monitor in a heartbeat for that.
 
The flicker of plasma's just negates them as any future major top tech, in my opinion.
When up to 20% of people see and hate the flicker, we need to move on to something better. Black levels are really all the plasmas have going for them.
I was going to buy the Panasonic VT65 and just could not bring myself to do it as the eye fatigue was too intense (even after 5 minutes - no way I could sit through a 2hr movie) - just like looking at an old 60hz CRT screen. Ended up buying a Sharp 70" instead and absolutely love it. It'll work until the next major innovation comes out in a halfway affordable package. IMO, it ain't plasma. Sharp's Elite line will continue to evolve traditional LCD/LED as far as it can go, which is pretty stinkin good on their Elite 70 (better than the Panasonic VT series IMO), and it'll stay mainstream for a while because of affordability. OLED is not without it's downsides either. If Sony could somehow figure a way to manufacture this Crystal LED stuff affordably in the next 2-4 years, it could be as close to perfection as we've seen.
 
i think this technology has been around for a while now... i seem to remember something from my childhood...

litebrite.jpg
 
Vega said:
How did the 2012 plasma look compared to the LED display and the older version plasma's?
Click to expand...

the blackness are even more black, also the colors was quite vibrant. also they claim it auto adjust to light but it was showned in a pitch black room.
 
Wider color gamut would be a bad thing on a TV. You want a perfect match to the the native HDTV colorspace, which pretty much all display technologies can currently do. A wide gamut is a marketing ploy for monitors, and generally a bad thing for consumers. What you want is a perfect standard gamut, not a wider than standard gamut.
 
sethk said:
A wide gamut is a marketing ploy for monitors, and generally a bad thing for consumers. What you want is a perfect standard gamut, not a wider than standard gamut.
Click to expand...

That's not always the case. My monitor has a wider gamut than sRGB in green shades only, and it enables the display of green colours that are much closer to pure green than what sRGB is capable of. Yes it is technically distorted, but it makes games and video content look subjectively much better to me.

The colour that most people know as green on standard gamut monitors is actually halfway between green and yellow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top