SED- the next technology for HD displays?

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 44
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    Well LCDs will never offer the colour quality of some other technologies and I'm inclined to believe that on the large side of the market they will always retain their higher costs. They are just too prone to defects.
  • Reply 22 of 44
    mmmpiemmmpie Posts: 628member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by @homenow

    By your definition then the Yonah processor and PS 3 (CELL) are both vaporware as well. I think that your definition is too broad.



    Vaporware is a product which has been anounced but has not shipped. Many companies will 'launch' their product early in an effort to stop consumers from buying a competitors product. In the short gap between 'launch' and availability things can and do go wrong. That gap can streeeeeeeeetch and even snap, with nearly finished products never being released.



    SED displays have been around for a long time. I think they can be fairly considered as vapor. It does seem likely that they will finally hit the market soon.
  • Reply 23 of 44
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mmmpie

    SED displays have been around for a long time. I think they can be fairly considered as vapor.



    What? As far as I know, SEDs were first talked about in 2003, then discussed in detail this summer/fall and have always been planned for a 2006/2007 release timeframe.



    No vapor.
  • Reply 24 of 44
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,075member
    They say it is the same price as LCD/Plasma - which probably means the same as LCD, since LCD is about twice as expensive as Plasma.



    I am still going to get a 50" plasma - the lack of reflection in a lit room is the "killer app" for plasma, they mention that the SED monitor had reflection problems. I also don't believe the black level comparison - the plasmas that I have seen have great black levels.
  • Reply 25 of 44
    mellomello Posts: 555member
    Hopefully there will be some new announcements & photos of these SED sets at

    the 2006 CES show.
  • Reply 26 of 44
    mmmpiemmmpie Posts: 628member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    What? As far as I know, SEDs were first talked about in 2003, then discussed in detail this summer/fall and have always been planned for a 2006/2007 release timeframe.



    No vapor.




    "Large-screen, flat-panel televisions are expected to flourish in the coming digital network era. The SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display) is a new type of flat-panel display that Canon has been developing since 1986."



    http://www.canon.com/about/r_d/topics.html



    I can remember seeing small ( 5" - 8" ) display prototypes in tech books, magazines and tv shows when I was in high school ( early 90's ) with the proclimation that they would be in mass production in just a 'couple' of years. They were the up and coming product for dislay technology ( LCDs were pretty bad back then ).



    Its taken at least ten years since I first heard of them. Id call that vapor. It does look like they will be rolling out soon ( current prototypes actually look like something you would buy ). But, once again, they are saying that they will be cost competitive with LCD. IMHO this is a miss direction, production levels will be so low for the first few years that these will be high end displays only. If you are thinking about investing in a cheap ( $2000 ) or middle of the range HDTV then I wouldnt lose much sleep about the arrival of SED. It is a perfect application of vapor. By pre-announcing the product they make people worry about their upcominh purchases, and maybe even put them off all together.
  • Reply 27 of 44
    back to the topic: I first heard of the SED displays as being used in digital cameras, the low power comsumption may help with "live preview" something Sony is doing with the R1 (the R1 uses a lower power CMOS sensor to help achieve low power consumption), SED may also be brighter/more glare resistant etc, we may see 2.5/3 inch SED displays before the larger ones (and maybe even in iPods)
  • Reply 28 of 44
    mmmpiemmmpie Posts: 628member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by halse

    back to the topic: I first heard of the SED displays as being used in digital cameras, the low power comsumption may help with "live preview" something Sony is doing with the R1 (the R1 uses a lower power CMOS sensor to help achieve low power consumption), SED may also be brighter/more glare resistant etc, we may see 2.5/3 inch SED displays before the larger ones (and maybe even in iPods)



    My intuition is that FED displays are a 'nicer' technology. It seems like a FED can be much thinner, as a vacuum cavity doesnt have to be mechanical supported. I hope that we see some good progress from samsung over the next year or two on that front ( more vapor ). Oh, and I just love products that use nano tubes
  • Reply 29 of 44
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    I bought my EDTV plasma with the idea of waiting out the new-tech battles until a next-gen HDTV display technology emerges (affordable flat-panel 1080p) and actual 1080p content arrives.



    It's been a great deal for me so far and I can't see anything on the near horizon in the same price range ($1500ish) to make me even anticipate regretting it.



    Don't always think cutting edge; these aren't computers that will get slow.
  • Reply 30 of 44
    i own a 56" samsung DLP set. one of the new models with 1080p resolution.



    i considered plasma, but plasma isnt high resolution, best they do is 720p. i can assure everyone that the viewing angle and visibility of the screen in a well lit room is excellent, every bit as good if not better than plasma.



    my next set may be a plasma, assuming the technology catches up to current 1080p sets.



    i know, i know. its a bit silly to get 1080p now, since almost nothing does that resolution. dvd's dont look so great anymore... they're too low res. the best signals i get come from cable and the handful of channels that broadcast 1080i. those programs look awesome of course, much crisper and higher resolution than dvd. i just need them to roll out the HD players now.



    btw it makes a great monitor. 1920x1080 and very crisp. if nothing else, the apple HD movie trailers look very good on it =)
  • Reply 31 of 44
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    As impressive as rumoured.



    Quote:

    The SED display sets were 32-inches showing a 720p pic, but the production units later this year will be 55-inches in full 1080p. Even with the the 720p source material during the 12-minute presentation, the SED picture rivaled, or even exceeded some of the 1080p displays we scanned this week. The demo highlighted features like brightness, contrast, depth and color. Probably the best way to describe something this visual is to think back to when you first saw HDTV. Remember the impact it had on you and the jump you saw in picture quality? That's what SED feels like; it's like making the jump from SDTV to HDTV all over again. It's that good.



    Read the whole article though. They really do rave about how impressive it looks. Right now if I could put off a purchase of a tv for a year I'd be waiting to see how these turn out. So far they sound like all the things CRTs were without the bulk and all the things that LCDs, Plasmas and DLPs aren't.
  • Reply 32 of 44
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,435member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Telomar

    As impressive as rumoured.





    Read the whole article though. They really do rave about how impressive it looks. Right now if I could put off a purchase of a tv for a year I'd be waiting to see how these turn out. So far they sound like all the things CRTs were without the bulk and all the things that LCDs, Plasmas and DLPs aren't.




    I'm really excited about SED tech. CRTs still give you a better picture but there's the size limitation. With SED I'm hoping we have everything that a CRT excels in with a thin profile.



    I'd love to have SED tv for the future home and a 1080p front projection system for the main Theatre room. If they can hit 55 inches and keep'em affordable they'll have a huge hit on their hands.
  • Reply 33 of 44
    Quote:

    Originally posted by KidRed

    Plasmas will last 14 years or so, long enough for you to want to place it. If they only lasted 3-4 don't you think there's be millions of pissed off people suing, petitioning, picketing that their $5k plasma died? Stop spreading fud.





    I run a digital signage company that does extensive testing on various types of displays. There is a reason that we don't use plasmas very often, this isn't FUD. They DO burn in, yes the burn in issue is less pronounced that it used to be, and if you are only watching fullscreen video all the time you will probably be fine (the screen will still dim, but only noticeable over a period of YEARS). However, if you are someone that used picture-in-picture or extensive on-screen menus that could be left on the screen for long periods of time, you should not get a plasma. Especially not if you plan to use this as a computer monitor as well.



    Basically, any image that remains stationary on screen will create a different burn rate for that area. You notice burn differences pretty fast (think CNN like layouts with the logo and black bar on the bottom for hours on end). I personally burned in a windows logo on a $3000 plasma in the computer driving it crashed over a weekend. This was just over a year ago, and the technology has gotten better...but LCD doesn't experience this problem and is getting close to the same price/performance.
  • Reply 34 of 44
    jasenj1jasenj1 Posts: 923member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    I'm really excited about SED tech. CRTs still give you a better picture but there's the size limitation. With SED I'm hoping we have everything that a CRT excels in with a thin profile.



    I'd love to have SED tv for the future home and a 1080p front projection system for the main Theatre room. If they can hit 55 inches and keep'em affordable they'll have a huge hit on their hands.




    My fear is "they" (Toshiba and Canon) will only go after the 55"+ crowd for the first few years. Personally, I'd rather see them go after the smaller size market - because that's the one I'm in!



    From a business point of view, it probably makes sense to go with big screens first, though. Bigger margins on the big displays. Fewer overall sets so they can ramp up production. Then after they've gotten very comfortable with the manufacturing, and gained some mind/market-share, they can start producing sets that mere mortals can afford.



    - Jasen.
  • Reply 35 of 44
    The SED technology is more suitable for large displays than smaller ones. The key is to print those pattens on a flat surface by printers during manufacturing process. Smaller sizes will challenge the printing technology too much. If they use a different technology to print those patterns, the cost may go up.



    On the other hand, LED is most suitable for small size displays since patterns are made with semiconductor manufacturing processes that are famed for handling microscopic features.



    Just my 2c.
  • Reply 36 of 44
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    Toshiba said in a meeting they are aiming at an ASP of A$700 per screen in 2010. Not sure if that referred solely to the larger launch sizes though. Production is aimed at 180 000 screens in 2007 ramping to 3 million a year in 2010 so expect some wait especially as the global market is expected to be 100 million for flat screens in 2009 according to this next article.



    This article is just for interest. Samsung is saying $20 per inch by 2008 for plasmas.



    50" plasma for $1000 in 2008
  • Reply 37 of 44
    hey, are american LCDs and Plasmas better than those here in europe? (because you're already onto HDTV maybe?)



    i'm asking because i can't understand how people are paying those high prices for such craptacular screens. I have yet to see ONE single LCD or Plasma screen (for TV) that doesnt look awful. artifacts all over the place, minimum dynamic range, flickering, very low resolution, lack of contrast, burned colors...etc, etc. IMHO simply a JOKE!



    when you compare them to the traditional and now very cheap CRTs, those screens fail all over the place, really.



    I'm very glad that that's happenning though because now you can get a big trinitron for next to nothing.
  • Reply 38 of 44
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,075member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jindrich

    when you compare them to the traditional and now very cheap CRTs, those screens fail all over the place, really.



    The plasmas here seem better than CRTs to me - but not the cheap ones at sams club (which maybe are the ones you looked at). Take a look at the Panasonic TH50PHD8UK.
  • Reply 39 of 44
    curmicurmi Posts: 70member
    Take a look at the pioneers 6th Generation plasmas. Best plasmas available.



    http://www.pioneer.co.uk/uk/product_...onomy_id=62-63
  • Reply 40 of 44
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    Panasonic and Pioneer both have very nice screens and are worth a look. Pioneer's seems to burn easier than Panasonic screens though and Panasonic has a slightly nicer picture. The Pioneer package is better though.



    Fujitsu used to be nice too but I haven't seen a new one from the current generation.



    I wouldn't bother with most of the others. Bad plasmas are very bad, same as a bad LCD just looks horrible. CRTs still lead to my eyes but then you need the space and to not mind the weight.



    Edit: Fujitsu's screens are actually the same as the last I saw so they're lagging a bit now.
Sign In or Register to comment.