What is SED?

M

M'ichal

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
423
I read about LED LCD's, but I'm not sure what SED is and would appreciate if anyone could write what they know about it or post links. I did a search once but what I found wasn't too satisfactory, basically they wrote that it's some kind of an upcoming combination of CRT + LCD or sth like that.

Thx a bunch.
 
From what I understand its basicly a crt in the size of an lcd, with all the benefits, like less power space etc... but the response time is that of a crt :)
 
Thanks guys.

Sounds really cool! But I guess since each pixel will have its own emitter, the problem of resolution scaling will still be present, although it's probably usually the least of issues.
 
M'ichal said:
Thanks guys.

Sounds really cool! But I guess since each pixel will have its own emitter, the problem of resolution scaling will still be present, although it's probably usually the least of issues.
Click to expand...

Wrong, it uses the same principle of CRT's therefore scaling will not be a problem.
 
How so? If you got only enough emitters for 1280x1024 how will you be able to suddenly introduce 1600x1200 of them???
 
Phantron said:
Wrong, it uses the same principle of CRT's therefore scaling will not be a problem.
Click to expand...
Wrong, wrong. SEDs have discrete pixels, that is to say "the same principle" as LCDs.
 
So that means CRT will still be the superiors for gaming? Aww, comeon! THIS SUCKS! Arrhhh, give me a CRT someone :(
 
Well, it depends what u're looking for, if u want good res-scaling and don't care about power consumption + size + weight, then for you a CRT will be superior. If you're willing to run stuff on native res then I guess the SED will be good for you. I ran stuff in 1024x786 on a 19" LCD and it still looked great, so scaling is not a big issue for me.

Looks like the SED is gonna be a winner.
 
Actually, I'm using everything between 640x480 - 1600x1200, but most games at 640x480 (don't ask why :D)

So, uhm, CRT is my best choice currently.
 
With the improved image quality, I think it's worth it.

It'd be cool if they could increase the dot pitch considerably, that'd make the interpolation look better.
 
Well, can I use 120hz on the native resolution? If so, then I think I'll reconsider buying SED. :)
 
hehe, relax man, it's not even out yet and from what they wrote looks like it won't be out (at least the monitors) for another year :) So stick to your CRT now.

And I have no idea if you will be able to use 120hz refresh rate. You probably won't even need it that high thugh, cause the image will be drawn in a different way than on CRT, like on LCD (I guess).
 
Hmm, but if you use lower, wouldn't there be tearing?

Sorry if I ask too many dumb questions, just getting a little annoyed of not finding any CRT's here where I live :p
 
Tearing? No, no, tearing occurs for a different reason, it's got nothing to do with resolution scaling. What you will get is just bigger pixels,, bad resolution, that's it. But what you will probably be able to do (and this applies to LCDs too) is disable scaling and then only the number of pixels required by your resolution will be used on the monitor, and the rest of the pictures will be just black. So if u'll use 800x600, only the 800x600 pixels in the middle of the screen will be used and you will have a black frame around the image. Kinda like the black stripes when u're watching a widescreen DVD on a fullscreen display.
 
tearing is an issue that has to do with refresh rate (the 60Hz). And while I am not sure if higher refresh rate effects tearing (I use an LCD at 60Hz, so not sure)..., if the SED can handle it, then sure. But how it will change refresh rate is beyond me, since its not a single ray scanning across the screen. Hmm...
that is a good question. till then, get a great graphics card and use v-sync. If its an OpenGL game, you get even luckier with triple buffering.
 
think of each pixel on an SED as a mini CRT, the only downside at the moment seems to be the resolution scaling but the positive far outway the negatives. Iam not sure of the refresh rate though and how it will be handled.

1) Contrast Ratio
2) Brightness
3) Response Time
4) Viewing Angle
5) Colour Accuracy
6) Low Power
7) Thin Profile
 
FitzRoy said:
Will SEDs flicker like CRTs? Is the screen updated the same way?
Click to expand...
I doubt it. CRTs flicker because there is one electron gun that has to make a full pass across each phosphour on the screen. That electron gun can only move so fast. . . and how fast it moves is what we refer to as the "refresh rate."

With SED, each phosphour has its own electron gun. So, it could conceivably be firing at all times. Hence, no flicker.

H
 
FitzRoy said:
Will SEDs flicker like CRTs? Is the screen updated the same way?
Click to expand...
No. SED doesn't scan the front of the display like a CRT does to display the image. Instead each pixel is activated directly, just like with an LCD.

So basically an SED is an LCD starting from the back, and then turns into a CRT (or a lot of tiny CRTs) :)
 
M'ichal said:
Tearing? No, no, tearing occurs for a different reason, it's got nothing to do with resolution scaling. What you will get is just bigger pixels,, bad resolution, that's it. But what you will probably be able to do (and this applies to LCDs too) is disable scaling and then only the number of pixels required by your resolution will be used on the monitor, and the rest of the pictures will be just black. So if u'll use 800x600, only the 800x600 pixels in the middle of the screen will be used and you will have a black frame around the image. Kinda like the black stripes when u're watching a widescreen DVD on a fullscreen display.
Click to expand...

Kinda meant with the refresh rates tho :) If it can't handle high rates.
 
From that Canon link, I don't see how can anyone put up w/ the high reflection level on the screen from SED tech.
 
SEDs will not flicker. SEDs do not need 120Hz refresh rate. SEDs resemble LCDs in this respect, the pixels stay lit until they are told to change. Thus, 60Hz works splendidly. Tearing should be like with LCDs. The fix for tearing is vsync and triple buffering.

Reflection should depend on filters, etc, eh? Dont see why it would be the same on all displays.

OLED is several years away.
 
OLED isnt ment for PC displays it will end up in mobiles, Ipods, PDA's etc...

OLED has the problem with very short life similar to plasma and also the individual colours all deteriorating diferrently over time, OLED will not be suitable for PC displays you may be able to get away with TV's but nothing very big.

IMLED is another story from the specification it is still using an LCD panel, the only thing thats changed is the backlight, the display will still suffer from the rest of the LCD issues.

Spec PDF for Brightside Displays
http://www.brightsidetech.com/products/info/dr37p_specs.pdf


The industry needs to let go of LCD and move on, the issues still exist even to this day since the first LCD appeared.
 
Alright, I finally finished reading the article about HDR. Sounds really cool, I'd like to see it in person.
As opposed to SED, which is basically making current CRTs thinner, this HDR seems to improve the actual image, drastically.
But then it kinda sux that it's still an LCD, so the stupid viewing angle issues will be back. And how about blurring??? I'm curious to see what emerges.

Thx for all the info guys, this week I became SED-, OLED- and HDR-aware =)

*edit*: Looks like someone has to come up with a sort of a hybrid between SED and HDR. Imna try to do that on Monday.
 
Hmm, after learning more about sed, I doubt I would say it's just a thinner crt. Seems like a perfect blend between crt and lcd advantages. The contrast, the way it updates the screen, the power consumption, the response time... I guess the only negative about the tech is that it's not out yet ;)
 
Just do like I did with an LCD for SED and apply the same theory:

Get a 1600x1200 and be over with. By that time, we'll have GPUs that will be powerful enough to drive most if not all games at that res.
 
ajm786 said:
Just do like I did with an LCD for SED and apply the same theory:

Get a 1600x1200 and be over with. By that time, we'll have GPUs that will be powerful enough to drive most if not all games at that res.
Click to expand...
That res is by far not enough.
 
SED is looking like its going to be awesome, but I'm surprised that the simplest fix for LCD contrast ratio's hasn’t been applied yet; Layering LCD panels one on top of another, and using a brighter backlight (or LED array backlight); the second layer of pixels could even be grayscale only as color isn’t needed for a brightness reduction layer.

You would get darker blacks due to two layers of pixels blocking light, and brighter whites due to the allowance of a brighter backlight, and using the option of an LED array for a backlight would allow an even greater contrast ratio due to being able to turn areas of the screens backlight completely off.

I'm not saying I want this instead of SED, it still leaves the issue of response time, color reproduction, and viewing angles; I’m just surprised that it hasn’t been tried yet.
 
FoxhoundOp said:
How do you figure?
Click to expand...
Hmm. I've used it for years and always wanted more?

The future is higher resolutions and smaller dot pitches (closer to photorealistic). And resolution independent GUIs.
 
Unknown-One, but I dunno if stacking LCD layers is that simple. From what I know, there is a transistor behind each sub-pixel that controls it. So for your new layer you'd also have to have these transistors, which would have to be placed between the two LCD layers. So the transistors for the outermost layer would block the layer behind it. Unless you found some other whacky way of controling the voltage applied to the crystals.
 
will sed give radiation like crts?
will sed have sharp text/graphics like lcds?
when will they release the first sed and how much is it going to cost initially?
 
weemies said:
Hmm. I've used it for years and always wanted more?

The future is higher resolutions and smaller dot pitches (closer to photorealistic). And resolution independent GUIs.
Click to expand...

Realism isn't going to come from more resolution, it'll come from more realistic 3D effects and engines. We're finally at the point where NVIDIA and ATi are concentrating on realism over resolution because they've finally reached the point (around 1600x1200) where they have the resolution they need to make things look truly realistic via other additional means.

I've had a monitor capable of 2048x1536 for years. My eyes detect very little difference between that and 1600x1200 with all other things remaining constant. But I sure noticed the DX9 effects in COD2! Those made a difference, and things remained playable at 1600x1200 with everything turned on. At 2048x1536, it didn't look any better, but became a slide-show.

I could see the need for more resolution if displays suddenly grew in size. But at 1600x1200 (which, I too have been using for years), we've reached a sweet spot where it's time to start concentrating on other visual shortcomings.

H
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top