Close Encounters of the Third Kind: SED

C

carpediem

Regular
carpediem said:
I WANT one!!!

http://www.behardware.com/articles/593-1/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-sed.html
  • Response time : inferior to 1 ms
  • Contrast ratio : 100,000:1 (brightness is of 400 cd/m²)
  • Viewing angles : complete, 180° in each directions.
Click to expand...

Yep they are kinda sexxxeeeyy but after seeing those $50k HDR LCD displays from BrightSide, those are my new "dream". SED is already "real" if u know what i mean :LOL: They're cheap!

Now to keep this discussion up, the luminance is only 400cd/m... Even today's displays are better than that. The contrast ratio is high because the luminance is low.

The HDR displays have a luminance of something ridiculous like 4000cd/m...
 
london-boy said:
Now to keep this discussion up, the luminance is only 400cd/m... Even today's displays are better than that. The contrast ratio is high because the luminance is low.
Click to expand...
I personally find my LCD monitors have too high of luminance. I turn them all the way down so I can work in the dark-ish.
 
silence said:
yeah.... slim like LCD with response less then 1ms.......just a monitor.... sure......;)
Click to expand...
It's still just a monitor and monitors I've seen. Wake me up when it does something exciting like project in 3D or synthesise beer :)
 
SED technology looks fantastic. It basically addresses exactly what I (and I believe most people) see as drawbacks in current solutions: notably poor black levels. But, do any of you know of any limitations or drawback of SED? Surely it cannot be perfect, or can it?

Viewing angle looks superb, blacks look fabulous, at least when judging by online comparison shots, and they are slim. There must be something wrong with them. But what?
 
wireframe said:
SED technology looks fantastic. It basically addresses exactly what I (and I believe most people) see as drawbacks in current solutions: notably poor black levels. But, do any of you know of any limitations or drawback of SED? Surely it cannot be perfect, or can it?

Viewing angle looks superb, blacks look fabulous, at least when judging by online comparison shots, and they are slim. There must be something wrong with them. But what?
Click to expand...
somehow they would tout whats wrong with the tech for now.... but from what i have seen, it is really great.... slim as LCD, picture and response as CRT.... something i would love to have on my desk...

http://www.canon.com/technology/display/ good link, its basically CRT, but without tube....
Since SEDs apply the same light emission theory as CRTs, they provide dynamic color expression, a sharp picture, and faster videoresponse than LCDs and plasma display panels (PDPs). In addition, SEDs do not require electronic beam deflection, making possible screens of more than 40 inches in size that are only several centimeters thick.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
silence said:
somehow they would tout whats wrong with the tech for now.... but from what i have seen, it is really great.... slim as LCD, picture and response as CRT.... something i would love to have on my desk...

http://www.canon.com/technology/display/ good link, its basically CRT, but without tube....
Click to expand...
Of course they wouldn't want to reveal the negatives. According to Sony, even LCD is absolutely stunning with 4 megapixels (whoopie!). That's why I am asking on here if someone has some deeper knowledge of what could be potential downers apart from the introductory price, which may be high due to perceived value and limited supply.

There just has to be something wrong with it. I refuse to believe that these SED based television sets are perfect and will only be incrementally improved until the year 3000. :p

Edit:

Some hypothetical examples are:

Extreme sensitivity to ambient light.
Low life expectancy for pixels.
High power draw.
Long warm-up time.
There's gotta be something.
:LOL:
(I'm leaving out burn-in because I think I read that it is 'immune' to this)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What about magnetic field flux, ionizing radiation output and static charge buildup on these units? Those are all problems common with CRTs, and with the same basic tech used here, I wonder if it won't happen with SEDs as well.

Also, are these really true discrete pixel units? Because really, I fuckin' CAN do without moire shit appearing in certain graphics and having to compensate for geometric distortion and adjusting every god damn screenmode so it touches the edges of the screen in the year 2005...

To get AWAY from all that crap was the reason I switched to LCD in the first place, and 1ms response times or not doesn't matter if I get a load of other bullcrap along with it. :p
 
since they are based on CRT, with some changes, i guess they had time to make them as good as possible. let's wait and see ;)
 
Guden Oden said:
What about magnetic field flux, ionizing radiation output and static charge buildup on these units? Those are all problems common with CRTs, and with the same basic tech used here, I wonder if it won't happen with SEDs as well.

Also, are these really true discrete pixel units? Because really, I fuckin' CAN do without moire shit appearing in certain graphics and having to compensate for geometric distortion and adjusting every god damn screenmode so it touches the edges of the screen in the year 2005...

To get AWAY from all that crap was the reason I switched to LCD in the first place, and 1ms response times or not doesn't matter if I get a load of other bullcrap along with it. :p
Click to expand...
hehe....but if each pixel has its own emitter instead of "one for all" at the end of tube then you have same thing as LCD (individual pixels), but with CRT response and colors....
at least thats how i seee it...
 
Acert93 said:
MSRP and Availability. :cry:
Click to expand...

if they can kill competitions with these and if they arent to expansive to make.... maybe MSRP wont be that big...

availability is another question, depends how much risk they are ready to take and also if they will share tech with someone like Samsung who could put millions on market very fast....

anyway.... more choices is always good.... and for MSRP, they cant go too high if they want their tech to take on LCDs and plasma.....
 
silence said:
anyway.... more choices is always good.... and for MSRP, they cant go too high if they want their tech to take on LCDs and plasma.....
Click to expand...
Good points. Sometimes with these technologies they aim not for the mainstream but try to hit the the upper tier as a "premium" unit that is extra expensive. Kind of like PCs: Pay 3x as much for the extra 10% of performance.

That is one advantage LCDs have... they are a high volume part. The more of them made the cheaper they become. But like everyone else, while I like my LCD, I am looking forward to something with better black levels, better response times, true color (a lot are 6 bit), etc.
 
Acert93 said:
Good points. Sometimes with these technologies they aim not for the mainstream but try to hit the the upper tier as a "premium" unit that is extra expensive. Kind of like PCs: Pay 3x as much for the extra 10% of performance.

That is one advantage LCDs have... they are a high volume part. The more of them made the cheaper they become. But like everyone else, while I like my LCD, I am looking forward to something with better black levels, better response times, true color (a lot are 6 bit), etc.
Click to expand...


yap, that was my point..... they have to fight not one tech, but 2... LCD and Plasma and convince people their tech is better....
since it is based on CRT, i would suspect it is easier to move production from CRT to SED then from CRT to LCD... which means lower cost.....

they have to compete with something..... we (people that are aware of technolgy) know differencies and whats what... but if they wanna sell that to "Joe Six-Pack" they need to cut price.... all he sees is 2 or 3 TVs with same width that can look nice in his appartment... does he care about tech?...NO..... does he care about price?...YES...


that is why i think we might see SEDs at competitive prices....
 
london-boy said:
Now to keep this discussion up, the luminance is only 400cd/m... Even today's displays are better than that. The contrast ratio is high because the luminance is low.

The HDR displays have a luminance of something ridiculous like 4000cd/m...
Click to expand...
Compared to the HDR displays (that don't exist on the market right now), yes the luminance is low.
But most normal TFTs have a luminance around 250 cd/m^2. So it's brighter than those.



About the drawbacks: "Some hypothetical examples are:"

"Extreme sensitivity to ambient light."
Since it's got higher luminance than current TFTs, I don't think that wil be a problem.

"Low life expectancy for pixels."
Possible.
The phosphor is probably as durable as in CRTs. But I don't know if such electron emitters has been used in any products yet. So that could be a point of failure.

"High power draw."
I think most of the power draw in CRTs comes from the electtron ray deflection system. But you don't need that in SED.
The link silence gave said that the power consumption was 2/3 of a PDP.

"Long warm-up time."
The warm up time in a CRT is there because the electron gun needs to be heated. SEDs doesn't seem to have hot electron guns.


I'll add some possible problems:
Dead pixels
There's probably a transistor for each pixel, and maybe there's a risk that the electron emitters are faulty.

Fixed resolution
That's a given. If you're used to TFT, then there's no problem. But it is a drawback from CRT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Dynamic framebuffer resolution
2 3
Replies
42
Views
17K
chris1515
C
A
Holy Wall of Text: My impressions post Playstation 4 (PS4) unveil
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
20K
(((interference)))
I
G
Samsung SyncMaster S27A850D Mini-review
Replies
2
Views
8K
Grall
G
G
Apple Thunderbolt Display Mini-review (Grall definition of "mini"...)
Replies
12
Views
9K
Mendel
M
G
BenQ EW2420 24" LED VA-LCD review!
Replies
18
Views
13K
Pete
P
Back
Top