SED Technology

[Tahir2]

A recap of what is happening with SED is in order I believe so here goes:

Canon and Toshiba (http://www.cnet.com/4520-10602_1-5618734-1.html) showcased SED technology on 12/01/2006 (January 12th for you guys across the pond).

The product: It's not officially a product yet, meaning Toshiba didn't announce final pricing or availability, but on paper, SED, codeveloped with camera maker Canon, looks promising. A flat-panel display technology, SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display) uses phosphors activated by an electron emitter, just like standard CRT tube televisions. Supposedly, the result is tube-level picture quality in a flat form factor. Details were sketchy, but the first model should be 50 inches in size and have full 1,920x1,080 resolution.
Canon and Toshiba (http://www.digitalconnectmag.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=47208414) formed a joint SED TV display company on 15/09/2004 called SED Inc.

Imaging giants Canon and Toshiba said Wednesday they are joining forces to create a separate company to focus on SED flat-panel displays. The new company, SED Inc., is slated to begin operation next month, Canon and Toshiba said. It will be based in Japan and employ about 300 people.



There was a previous (http://www.itworld.com/Comp/3825/050823sed/pfindex.html)showcase of SED TV's 23/8/2005

SED technology has been under development for more than 20 years and is being positioned by Canon and Toshiba as a better option for large-screen TVs than PDP (plasma display panel) technology. SED panels can produce pictures that are as bright as CRTs (cathode ray tubes), use up to one-third less power than equivalent size PDPs and don't have the slight time delay sometimes seen with some other flat-panel displays, according to the companies.

Canon have been researching SED since 1986 (http://www.canon.com/press/p2004sep14.html) and began joint development with Toshiba in 1999

Canon began research in the field of SED technology in 1986 and, in 1999, began joint development activities with Toshiba with the aim of commercializing an SED product. In light of the progress realized at this stage of the joint development process, Canon and Toshiba, deeming the timing appropriate, agreed upon the establishment of a joint venture. Plans for the new company call for the commercialization of SED panels primarily for large-screen flat-panel televisions, with production scheduled to begin in 2005. Following the initial launch, a mass-production factory will be readied and production volume will be increased.
Canon's technology primer (http://www.canon.com/technology/display/) on SED

The key to the electron emitters, at the heart of the SED, is an extremely narrow slit several nanometers wide between two electric poles. Electrons are emitted from one side of the slit when approximately 10V of electricity are applied. Some of these electrons are scattered at the other side of the slit and accelerated by the voltage (approximately 10 kV) applied between the glass substrates; causing light to be emitted when they collide with the phosphor-coated glass plate.

Edit: added quote

[Guden Oden]

If it forms static magnetic fields around the screen/between screen and user, and/or emits X-rays (high probability, since it relies on accelerating electrons), I'm not buying it and I don't think anyone else should either.

If it requires high refresh rates to avoid image flicker, I'm not buying it EITHER. Crappy tech flickers. Good tech (LCD) does not.

And what about burn-in? It still uses phosphors. And what about weight? It's going to need to be fairly thick methinks if it's containing a vacuum.

[MuFu]

SED is very promising but the lack of news and poor showing at CES smells of pre-production difficulties.

I think LED-backed-LCD will make a dent in the high end of the market before SEDs become common. They are inherently more expensive to produce, but are based on existing LCD tech and 3rd-party IP which should keep initial costs relatively low - if NEC can bring out a FOAK high-res LCD/LED monitor that costs $7000, surely a sub-$5k CE display is a possibility this year. I doubt there are serious difficulties to overcome in scaling the LED matrix beyond 30".

[ANova]

SED is late, OLED is the future. Hell I agree with MuFu, I'd rather have an LCD with LED backlighting.

[RussSchultz]

OLED apparently is a giant power hog, even worse than plasma.

[nelg]

OLED apparently is a giant power hog, even worse than plasma.

Apparently if you supply enough current to anything organic it will glow.

[london-boy]

Apparently if you supply enough current to anything organic it will glow.

Apparently if you supply enough power to the right organic mix, little crawly swishy things start coming out.

[Blazkowicz]

If it forms static magnetic fields around the screen/between screen and user, and/or emits X-rays (high probability, since it relies on accelerating electrons), I'm not buying it and I don't think anyone else should either.

If it requires high refresh rates to avoid image flicker, I'm not buying it EITHER. Crappy tech flickers. Good tech (LCD) does not.

And what about burn-in? It still uses phosphors. And what about weight? It's going to need to be fairly thick methinks if it's containing a vacuum.


it's easy to get rid of all flicker on a CRT : just run it at 100Hz. but SED should not flicker as you have discrete subpixels instead of three electron guns panning the screen. though I don't know if the subpixel are always on or they make them flicker at 100Hz or more.

I don't care at all about radiation and CRT radiates most to the back anyway.

as for burnin, I only saw it on really old text-only or CGA monochrome monitors which ran the same DOS app for a decade :), or on a 25 year old jukebox with TV screen. No problem with a typical 15 year old TV or VGA monitor

[london-boy]

it's easy to get rid of all flicker on a CRT : just run it at 100Hz. but SED should not flicker as you have discrete subpixels instead of three electron guns panning the screen. though I don't know if the subpixel are always on or they make them flicker at 100Hz or more.

I don't care at all about radiation and CRT radiates most to the back anyway.

as for burnin, I only saw it on really old text-only or CGA monochrome monitors which ran the same DOS app for a decade :), or on a 25 year old jukebox with TV screen. No problem with a typical 15 year old TV or VGA monitor


The thing with SED is that it scans line by line like CRT TVs - you can see this if you take a picture or a video of it, a Plasma or LCD will show a full picture, a CRT or SED will show part of the picture, because the panels scan the whole screen slower than the aperture of the camera, in brief.
100Hz will help with the flickering obviously, and in the end these panels will give such great image quality (if they deliver on the promises obviously), that i don't think anyone will or should complain.
I've only had my HDTV for a couple of weeks and i'm already thinking about the future, when i'll sell it for a SED or for "something else". Shame it seems that these new panels will only be VERY big and i can't have a huge TV at home cause it would look out of place.

[darkblu]

as for burnin, I only saw it on really old text-only or CGA monochrome monitors which ran the same DOS app for a decade :), or on a 25 year old jukebox with TV screen. No problem with a typical 15 year old TV or VGA monitor

and i've seen too many 'press control-alt-del to login' burns.

[_xxx_]

and i've seen too many 'press control-alt-del to login' burns.

LOL!!! :lol:

[Nite_Hawk]

it's easy to get rid of all flicker on a CRT : just run it at 100Hz. but SED should not flicker as you have discrete subpixels instead of three electron guns panning the screen. though I don't know if the subpixel are always on or they make them flicker at 100Hz or more.

I don't care at all about radiation and CRT radiates most to the back anyway.

as for burnin, I only saw it on really old text-only or CGA monochrome monitors which ran the same DOS app for a decade :), or on a 25 year old jukebox with TV screen. No problem with a typical 15 year old TV or VGA monitor
Any technology (CRT, SED, etc) which shoots electrons at a phosphorus coated screen will flicker. The intensity and frequency of flickering is entirely dependent on the decay time of the phosphor and the rate at which electrons are shot at the screen.

Changing the decay time has certain advantages and disadvantages. A long decay time means that you don't need to refresh the screen as often to avoid flickering, but that images on the screen will ghost as it takes longer for any given pixel to stop glowing. short decay times means that pixels will stop glowing quickly so you get fast response times, but you need to refresh the screen more often otherwise it will be easy to notice a bright pixel constantly being refreshed, decaying, and refreshing again (in otherwords, flickering).

SED displays are the same as CRTs in this regard. You have tradeoffs between the refresh rate and the decay rate of the phosphor. Having a short phosphor decay and a high refresh rate is optimal, but it also means that you need more throughput to the screen, and a higher framerate to avoid tearing. LCD displays have "always on" pixels so the refresh rate for LCDs can pretty much be set to any rate, but they are still limited in how quickly the LCD elements can change state, just like how quickly the phosphor decay is for a CRT monitor. Currently CRT phosphor decay is pretty fast, which is why CRTs have recently had less problems with ghosting than LCDs. On the other hand, LCDs have a certain long term advantage in that their response times aren't tied to the refresh rates like they are with CRTs. A very very fast phosphor decay would mean you'd need very high (to a point) refresh rates on a CRT to avoid flicker. LCDs would not suffer this problem.

Nite_Hawk

[Mariner]

How about this then:

An inorganic electroluminescent (IEL) display technology, TDEL is based on a patented thick-film dielectric structure that enables excellent video performance and color saturation, while providing inherent ruggedness and reliability. (http://www.ifire.com/Technology/index.aspx)

Opinions?

[Xmas]

Any technology (CRT, SED, etc) which shoots electrons at a phosphorus coated screen will flicker. The intensity and frequency of flickering is entirely dependent on the decay time of the phosphor and the rate at which electrons are shot at the screen.
That is not true for SED if you use some kind of memory element that keeps the electron ray at a constant (low) level for the whole refresh cycle. Then you can use the fastest-decaying phosphors for an image free of ghosting and flickering.

[ShootMyMonkey]

OLED apparently is a giant power hog, even worse than plasma.
Where on earth did you hear that? Most all indications I've seen about OLED is that it is significantly lower power than anything out there. You think they'd use OLED displays on cell phones if they were power hogs? OLED backlights for LCD screens were used mainly because they are lower power and run cooler than any CCFL backlight. It'll also prove to be the lightest weight display because it is self-luminescent and doesn't require a backlight like LCD.

The main problem with OLED is lifespan. No one has been able to make them consistent across all 3 colors as well as create something that lasts a reasonably good amount of time. That's why for now, they're relegated to small screens for cell phones and digital cameras.

SED is also lower power consumption than LCD, but apparently only above a certain size. When you start scaling sizes down, LCD drops off in power faster (backlights being the biggest factor, I'd expect).

The thing with SED is that it scans line by line like CRT TVs - you can see this if you take a picture or a video of it, a Plasma or LCD will show a full picture, a CRT or SED will show part of the picture, because the panels scan the whole screen slower than the aperture of the camera, in brief.
AFAICT, SED scans using a transistor matrix just the same as LCD does. Since it has a gun for every pixel, that only makes sense.

[Nite_Hawk]

That is not true for SED if you use some kind of memory element that keeps the electron ray at a constant (low) level for the whole refresh cycle. Then you can use the fastest-decaying phosphors for an image free of ghosting and flickering.
Well, it's technically still true because all you are doing here is speeding up the rate at which electrons hit each pixel element. It just means that the flicker would be much much shorter, and much much less intense. :)

Still, a number of reviews seem to indicate that the SED displays they've seen still have scanlines which is a bit odd. Perhaps there are some limitations to shooting out a constant lower power stream of electrons (heat, efficiency, etc).

Edit: I should also mention that current gen LCDs use fluourescent backlights which flicker too, but it's generally fast enough that you don't notice it. It's not a limitation of LCD technology though, just the backlight method.

Nite_Hawk

[Xmas]

Well, it's technically still true because all you are doing here is speeding up the rate at which electrons hit each pixel element. It just means that the flicker would be much much shorter, and much much less intense. :)
But on that scale you could say light flickers ;)

[Nite_Hawk]

But on that scale you could say light flickers ;)
This is also true. ;)

Edit: this might start a flame war I don't want to be part of. :shock: :twisted:

Nite_Hawk

[AlphaWolf]

OLED apparently is a giant power hog, even worse than plasma.

? link?

My understanding is that early reports were that OLED would be a power saving technology although the savings in practice over LCD have been negligable.

[Moloch]

it's easy to get rid of all flicker on a CRT : just run it at 100Hz. but SED should not flicker as you have discrete subpixels instead of three electron guns panning the screen. though I don't know if the subpixel are always on or they make them flicker at 100Hz or more.

I don't care at all about radiation and CRT radiates most to the back anyway.

as for burnin, I only saw it on really old text-only or CGA monochrome monitors which ran the same DOS app for a decade :), or on a 25 year old jukebox with TV screen. No problem with a typical 15 year old TV or VGA monitor
QFT
Guden Oden is like the media= trying to scare everyone with things blown way out of porportion.
I only need 75 hz to be flickerfree on my 19 crt btw.
I don't have any burn in on my crt either :roll:
I really like the bit about how good technology doesn't flicker, first off 75 hz and above should get rid of it for most people, second off LCD in it's current form isn't good technology, it's just thin so everyone goes googoo over it.
Good technology doesn't look good at only one or two resolutions :razz:

[ShootMyMonkey]

My understanding is that early reports were that OLED would be a power saving technology although the savings in practice over LCD have been negligable.
The main reason the difference isn't so big is because all commercial use of OLED screens has been tiny ones (less than 3"). On larger screens, the difference is more pronounced because large LCDs need more powerful bigger backlights, whereas OLEDs don't need them at all. There are still resistance issues with scaling them up to very large sizes, though. Samsung, I think, had a prototype 40" OLED display, and it was supposedly miraculously low in power consumption, but I think that was about the limit of what could have been produced with those materials.

Good technology doesn't look good at only one or two resolutions
That does seem to be the trend, though. Thin displays pretty much depend on having a fixed resolution. I don't think the movement away from the bulk of CRTs is going to subside. What is really needed are some good sampling mechanisms.

[Moloch]

That does seem to be the trend, though. Thin displays pretty much depend on having a fixed resolution. I don't think the movement away from the bulk of CRTs is going to subside. What is really needed are some good sampling mechanisms.
Well maybe for watching video that's fine but for gaming it's unacceptable, where games come out pretty often pushing the limits of hardware.
It's also good to be able to choose a slightly lower res with higher levels of FSAA vs high res and lower levels of fsaa.

[Xmas]

Good technology doesn't look good at only one or two resolutions :razz:
The only way to achieve that is to have very high resolution displays (e.g. 200+ dpi on 19") where you just don't notice the interpolation.

[Jawed]

The only way to achieve that is to have very high resolution displays (e.g. 200+ dpi on 19") where you just don't notice the interpolation.
I dream of the day...

Jawed

[RussSchultz]

? link?

My understanding is that early reports were that OLED would be a power saving technology although the savings in practice over LCD have been negligable.

Ummm, OLED screens are becoming popular in portable electronics because they look so nice and bright. Unfortunately, they draw considerably more power than their TFT bretherens at the moment. Sorry, no linkies, just what experience I've had with them. (One of our customers actually had to manage the color content of their UI because an overly bright display would drain the battery too quickly.)

[MuFu]

Some more links.

SED hands-on at CES:

http://gear.ign.com/articles/679/679235p1.html
http://ces.engadget.com/2006/01/08/sed-up-close-and-personal/

bit-tech BrightSide LCD-LED article:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/04/brightside_hdr_edr/1.html

TH review of Lumileds NEC monitor:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/10/28/a_revolution/

[AlphaWolf]

Ummm, OLED screens are becoming popular in portable electronics because they look so nice and bright. Unfortunately, they draw considerably more power than their TFT bretherens at the moment. Sorry, no linkies, just what experience I've had with them. (One of our customers actually had to manage the color content of their UI because an overly bright display would drain the battery too quickly.)

Well every piece of data I can find on OLED suggests much lower power draw than LCD. I do assume they mean at comparable brightness levels, so your example doesn't mean much.

I certainly don't expect a 5000 lumens OLED to use less power than a 1000 lumens LCD.

[Sxotty]

Well every piece of data I can find on OLED suggests much lower power draw than LCD. I do assume they mean at comparable brightness levels, so your example doesn't mean much.


That is what I have heard as well, lower power b/c no need for the backlight. Perhaps it is comparing the LCD panel with no backlight, and then yes OLEDs would use much more power.

[ShootMyMonkey]

I would certainly expect per-element power to be much higher as you have to deliver higher voltage and controlled current through the TFT matrix. However, the luminous efficiency of an LED is pretty high, and the viewer gets direct sight of it. As opposed to LCDs where you're polarizing and color filtering the light from the backlight as it passes through each element.

I'm pretty sure that implies that OLED screens can't get extremely huge or anything, but at least the larger the screen, the more difference there is in power. I saw something from IBM about 3 years back mentioning a 20" OLED color screen (http://www.theclockmag.com/grapevine_preview/march_preview.htm) drawing 25 W (@ 300 cd/m2) -- any data for a similar LCD?. There was also that whole business with MIT a few years back about QD-OLEDs achieving near theoretical limit efficiency.

[Guden Oden]

What sort of lighting mechanisms do smaller LCDs use, like in cell phones, PSP, GBA Micro/DS etc? It's not CCFLs, that much I do know...

[nutball]

My phone uses white LEDs as a backlight (a strip of them along the side of the screen, not a matrix of them).

[Guden Oden]

Yea well, those phones not using LED front-lighting then. :)

[darkblu]

My phone uses white LEDs as a backlight (a strip of them along the side of the screen, not a matrix of them).

this type of backlight is commonly referred to as front light ; )

[nutball]

Meh, whatever.

[ShootMyMonkey]

I think it's not uncommon to use LED backlights for small screens these days. A few actual diode elements is more than enough for a screen that's less than 3".

[Tahir2]

Update:

Toshiba, Canon delay SED TV launch to Q4 2007 (http://today.reuters.com/business/newsArticle.aspx?type=technology&storyID=nT343273)

The companies said on Wednesday they now plan to launch surface-conduction electron-emitter display (SED) TVs in the last quarter of 2007, compared to their original plan for this spring.
Toshiba and Canon formed a joint venture in 2004 to develop and make SED panels, which are thinner and consume less energy than liquid crystal display (LCD) and plasma display panels, currently the main technologies used for flat panel TVs.
"Price falls in flat TVs have been much steeper than we had anticipated," a Toshiba spokeswoman said.
"We would like to work further on rationalisation of production and cost cuts before an actual launch," she said.

[Ty]

"Price falls in flat TVs have been much steeper than we had anticipated," a Toshiba spokeswoman said.

Wha? Analysts have (accurately imo) predicted price declines in flat panel sets for many, many months now.

In addition, a Toshiba spokesman mentioned that SED sets would debut at "Ferrari prices".

So if everyone has known flat panel sets were going to drop in price AND Toshiba knew their SED sets would be relatively way more expensive anyhow....I don't see how their excuse makes sense. The only thing I can think of is that they can't ramp their production expenses down enough or perfect the technology at this point. A huge delay like this doesn't bode well whatsoever for the technology.

[Tahir2]

Sounds like they have concluded there is no market for a $10'000 55" screen even if the technology is excellent.

It is a bit of a shame but in the long run what is another year? We have been waiting since 1999 for the partnership (Tosh and Canon) to bear much fruit.

[Ty]

Sounds like they have concluded there is no market for a $10'000 55" screen even if the technology is excellent.

It is a bit of a shame but in the long run what is another year? We have been waiting since 1999 for the partnership (Tosh and Canon) to bear much fruit.

Well they've either changed their minds on their "Ferrari" launch or have realized that they can't ramp the costs down quick enough to compete with PDPs/LCDs and are trying to figure out a way to do that.

And don't mind my cynical attitude, I'm that way about everything. ;)

[darkblu]

oh well, one more year to bear with LCD tyranny.

[Tahir2]

After all this time it is possible SED will be superceded by other technologies for example OLED and better Plasma and LCD technology on the horizon.

[Ty]

After all this time it is possible SED will be superceded by other technologies for example OLED and better Plasma and LCD technology on the horizon.

IF they manage to make it out late 2007 at competitive prices, I doubt there will be much new technology ready at that point - more like refinement of current technology (as you mentioned) like another generation of LED back lighting.

[Tahir2]

The companies said Wednesday that they delayed the date of volume production of SEDs (surface-conduction electron-emitter displays) until July 2007, and the launch of the first SED TV sets won't be until the fourth quarter of that year. A major push on SEDs won't occur until the Beijing Olympics in 2008.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6047405.html


Canon has invested about $200 million in SED production at a plant in Hiratsuka, Kanagawa prefecture. It has been working to cut production costs at the R&D center there, but is still struggling with yields, according to an industry source.
With establishment of the R&D center last August, Toshiba and Canon had planned to introduce SED TVs by this spring. That introduction has been postponed to the fourth quarter of 2007. The R&D center will begin limited production of 55-inch panels in July 2007.


http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=181502058

Maybe Toshiba and Canon should have a word with Sony and IBM about yields? ;)

[Tahir2]

Canon had been hoping to get a piece of the $84 billion global flat-TV market using technology owned by Texas-based Nano-Proprietary.
But robed but not wigged one Judge Samuel Sparks of the US District Court for the Western District of Texas said Nano-Proprietary had every right to walk away from its license agreement it signed with Canon in 1999.
Nano-Proprietary signed the deal with the understanding that Canon would go it alone and develop the technology itself.


http://www.theinq.com/default.aspx?article=37826

The disagreement last month pushed Canon to decide to buy out the shares Toshiba owned in the unit, SED Ltd., but Nano-Proprietary said that move alone would not resolve the litigation.
"Canon's recent restructuring of SED as a wholly owned subsidiary is ineffective to prevent termination because this effort to cure the breach was not undertaken within a reasonable time," Sparks said in the ruling. "It occurred more than a year and a half after Canon was on notice of its breach."

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUST16045820070223

RIP SED?

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

RIP SED?

Nano-Proprietary is obviously trying to get more money, either from Canon, from selling the tech to another big company for production. They might even intend to make it themselves but I doubt they have the resources.

It doesn't do Nano-Proprietary any good to simply kill off the technology and have no one use it in any products at all.