SED, how I'll miss thee :( :( :(

[RobertR1]

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20061225/125850/

Time to look for a Panny 1080P, deep color, HDMI 1.3 plasma next year...........

 

[Rangers]

Ugh. So what else is on the horizon? I hate LCD...

I'm wondering though, if once Toshiba lets SED out of the bottle, if demand is there, can they keep it from being commoditized?

But the LCD price curve has been slow enough..dont really want to go through another one..

 

[Dersaidin]

Argh!

Greedy bastards. If they still think they can hold some market power in 10 years by not doing a 'full release' and allowing it to become a commodity, but if it would commoditize the article claims it'd only last 5, what would surpass it in 6 years? Why wont it surpass it in 6 years anyway and undermine Toshiba's bid for the market in 10 years?

Crazy!

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

The same people said the same thing about LCDs, Plasmas, PCs, Digital Cameras, etc. They regularly underestimate the appetite of the public for new gadgets, especially if they are an improvement over previous tech.

It's not like Toshiba are going to make a business out of selling SED to TV stations alone - once they've bought their initial order, those customers aren't a constant stream of revenue or an expanding market. If Toshiba don't go commodity, their business will be superseded by some other tech like OLED and SED will be dead in the water after they've sold a few thousands to TV stations.

Maybe the message we should read between the lines is that Toshiba are not in a position to make or market SED when they don't have the manufacturing capacity or the ability to take on the rest of the market with a new tech that the average customer won't understand.

 

[Tahir2]

My interpretation:
SED is hard to manufacture and will be priced at a high level with a tight supply to pay back some of those years of development we had to go through to get this technology to work and because it is such a pain to manufacture.

 

[Ty]

My interpretation:
SED is hard to manufacture and will be priced at a high level with a tight supply to pay back some of those years of development we had to go through to get this technology to work and because it is such a pain to manufacture.

That's exactly my thoughts as well! Oh well I'll miss the opportunity to actually consider getting one but I have to laugh in the face of those that said SED was the next messiah. The lesson is, getting it perfected in the lab is only 50% of the battle. Getting it OUT of the lab is another 95%.

 

[Capeta]

My interpretation:
SED is hard to manufacture and will be priced at a high level with a tight supply to pay back some of those years of development we had to go through to get this technology to work and because it is such a pain to manufacture.

My interpretation:
SEDs aren't overly difficult to make, however, we only have one small factory that produces these SED tvs so supply will be very low. At this time we cannot sell these tvs at a low enough price to compete with LCD/PDPs and still make acceptable profits with such a low supply (not enough economies of scale). We were unprepared for the rapidly declining prices of LCD/PDPs so are working to get better production efficiency from our small SED factory. We are in a difficult situation because as our production efficiency gets better other competing technologies like LCD/PDP also gets better through economies of scale. We could license out our SED technology to other tv manufacturers, but we would also have to compete with them since we also make SED tvs. We are not an IP only company.

That's exactly my thoughts as well! Oh well I'll miss the opportunity to actually consider getting one but I have to laugh in the face of those that said SED was the next messiah. The lesson is, getting it perfected in the lab is only 50% of the battle. Getting it OUT of the lab is another 95%.

I don't recall anybody claiming SED to be the next messiah, however, it does theoretically beat LCD and PDPs in all performance categories. I don't think the manufacturing is that difficult but it requires some new production equipment so the cost of investment in the equipment is higher than mature LCD/PDP manufacturing equipment. The important thing to consider is the fact Toshiba/Canon does not want to license their SED technology out to other manufacturers kinda like SONY and its BETAMAX so it's hard to get ecomonies of scale and therefore costs down. I doubt SED is experimental unlike OLED tvs.

 

[Ty]

My interpretation:
SEDs aren't overly difficult to make, however, we only have one small factory that produces these SED tvs so supply will be very low. At this time we cannot sell these tvs at a low enough price to compete with LCD/PDPs and still make acceptable profits with such a low supply (not enough economies of scale).

This assumes that Canon/Toshiba didn't know ahead of time (when they were talking about beating Plasma/LCDs) about their supply chain. So either they assumed that they would have more capabilities in building sets - like some deal fell through - or maybe it is more difficult to manufacture them on a mass scale than they expected.

We were unprepared for the rapidly declining prices of LCD/PDPs

Why should they be unprepared? AFAIK, many analysts have been fairly accurately predicting the fall of prices, around 15-20% a year.

We could license out our SED technology to other tv manufacturers, but we would also have to compete with them since we also make SED tvs.

That would be nice; I'd really love to check out SED.

I don't recall anybody claiming SED to be the next messiah,

Your official join date is Dec of this year. We've been discussing SED long before that. But yes, I'd love to get the chance to check it out. I'm in the market for a 50" so I can move my current plasma to the bedroom.

 

[Tahir2]

Hi Capeta, I suggest taking a look at this thread right over here - perhaps you will see why I interpreted the statement by Toshiba's president the way I did.

 

[Brimstone]

Ugh. So what else is on the horizon? I hate LCD...

MEMS devices with Laser Light sources.

Texas Instruments currently has DLP.

Sony exclusivly licensed "Grating Light Valve" from Silicon Light Machines a few years back.


The difference between DLP and GLV is GLV will only work with laser light sources. By designing a chip to only work with laser light sources allows for several advantages that helps picture quality. The fill factor becomes higher, even higher speed than DLP, smaller form factors, and so on.

Anyway I fully expect Texas Instruments to be working on a chip that will only work with laser light sources as well.

 

[Capeta]

Hi Capeta, I suggest taking a look at this thread right over here - perhaps you will see why I interpreted the statement by Toshiba's president the way I did.

SED really only made a public appearance a couple years ago. The time the technology has been in development before a fully functional prototype is realized isn't any different from the other technologies. Plasmas have been in use since the early days of laptop computers but it took over a decade to release the actual color plasma tvs. Toshiba has actually been improving the performance of SEDs over the years and not just improving production technologies. Contrast ratio is now up to 100,000:1 I'm willing to bet they'll release the SEDs for the 2008 Olympics.

 

[Mintmaster]

MEMS devices with Laser Light sources.

Texas Instruments currently has DLP.

Sony exclusivly licensed "Grating Light Valve" from Silicon Light Machines a few years back.


The difference between DLP and GLV is GLV will only work with laser light sources. By designing a chip to only work with laser light sources allows for several advantages that helps picture quality. The fill factor becomes higher, even higher speed than DLP, smaller form factors, and so on.

Thanks for pointing this out. I just read up on GLV, and it a neat technology. However, it seems like it'll be really tough to get high contrast ratio when you're counting on diffraction to modulate the light. If the rest position of the moving pillars is off by even just a nanometre, then your contrast ratio could drop notably.

It is a projection technology, however, and I think it will continue to co-exist with flat panel displays. Front projection only looks good in pitch-black rooms, and rear-projection will always wrestle with internal reflections that keep ANSI contrast down (though RP DLP is getting decent here at over 400:1 measured).

For the holy grail, people are looking for a flat display technology that gives you very dark on/off contrast ratio (they already have ANSI contrast down pat). RP has achieved well over 5,000:1 measured on/off contrast, but LCD and plasma flat-panels are still not much better than 1,000:1. SED would achieve it, but right now it's looking like it'll cost way too much. My guess is LED backlighting for LCD will be good enough that there won't be a need for any other technology w.r.t. image quality. Then it'll all be about finding a way to reduce cost, say with OLED.

Anyway I fully expect Texas Instruments to be working on a chip that will only work with laser light sources as well.

DLP doesn't work on diffraction, so it won't really help AFAIK. TI has achieved very good contrast at the chip, and they have the speed for 1-chip colour systems. All they need is the speed of lasers and/or LED to get rid of the rainbow effect.

 

[Snyder]

DLP doesn't work on diffraction, so it won't really help AFAIK. TI has achieved very good contrast at the chip, and they have the speed for 1-chip colour systems. All they need is the speed of lasers and/or LED to get rid of the rainbow effect.

What about affordable 3-chip DLPs? And I mean this as a serious question.
What are the reasons those are so goddamn expensive - if they are of a technical nature at all?
It certainly can't be the chips themselves - the numbers just don't add up.
Does a 3-chip DLP need much more complex optics? Or is it synchronization?
Or is it just TI having all the patents?

 

[ANova]

No big loss. SED was never that great to begin with imo, it suffered many of the same problems as CRT. I personally prefer some of the newer LCD HDTVs such as Sony's Bravia and OLED will be a clear advantage over anything else once it hits the market.

 

[Mintmaster]

What about affordable 3-chip DLPs? And I mean this as a serious question.
What are the reasons those are so goddamn expensive - if they are of a technical nature at all?
It certainly can't be the chips themselves - the numbers just don't add up.
Does a 3-chip DLP need much more complex optics? Or is it synchronization?
Or is it just TI having all the patents?

I think it's just the reality that most people seriously interested in 3-chip DLP's are willing to spend tons of money. It seems to be that way with any high end videophile or audiophile equipment. Is there any real reason for a front-projector to cost $20k?

Anyway, 3-chip will be entirely unnecessary once laser/LED light sources come out. They'll still be used for digital theatre projectors since they need so much light output, but for the consumer it doesn't make sense. Being single chip gives DLP a nice cost advantage.

 

[Ty]

No big loss. SED was never that great to begin with imo, it suffered many of the same problems as CRT. I personally prefer some of the newer LCD HDTVs such as Sony's Bravia and OLED will be a clear advantage over anything else once it hits the market.

I dunno about that. I don't believe SED suffered from Geometry issues. Maybe very minor Convergence problems but overall, I think it was looking very promising. Still could be once they perfect its production.

 

[Arwin]

My guess is LED backlighting for LCD will be good enough that there won't be a need for any other technology w.r.t. image quality. Then it'll all be about finding a way to reduce cost, say with OLED.

I agree - after just getting my first LCD / HD TV (see my LE32N71B thread), I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by how good LCDs have already gotten.

 

[wishiknew]

The window for SED have closed. Look at the tech that went into 70XBR3. 120hz, xvYCC, LED backlighting and 10 bit panel. So Sony, can I have that in smaller sizes?

 

[London Geezer]

The window for SED have closed. Look at the tech that went into 70XBR3. 120hz, xvYCC, LED backlighting and 10 bit panel. So Sony, can I have that in smaller sizes?

True. LED-arrays tech (like Brightside), added to all the new tech LCD is getting, will be VERY good for a long time, bit expensive but prices will come down quickly.

The main issue with LCD, contrast and black levels, are now not an issue with LED backlight. Motion blur and low response times were sorted out a long time ago even without technology like 100Hz from Toshiba and Samsung, and now Sony too, which absolutely removes the issue once and for all.

They did say LCD would make a jump pretty soon, especially compared to Plasma, and we're seeing it right now. Some "old school" LCD already gave equal or better IQ than Plasma (the Bravia W and X series). Now with all this new tech, LCD is ready to make the jump it needed to surpass plasma once and for all.

And it's good for us cause LCD prices are much easier to get down than the rather stagnant Plasma prices - although it will take a while for these new LED-LCD sets to become anywhere near "cheap".

 

[Gerry]

The main issue with LCD, contrast and black levels, are now not an issue with LED backlight. Motion blur and low response times were sorted out a long time ago even without technology like 100Hz from Toshiba and Samsung, and now Sony too, which absolutely removes the issue once and for all.

They did say LCD would make a jump pretty soon, especially compared to Plasma, and we're seeing it right now. Some "old school" LCD already gave equal or better IQ than Plasma (the Bravia W and X series). Now with all this new tech, LCD is ready to make the jump it needed to surpass plasma once and for all.

Sorry but I have to disagree with this. Motion blur is still very much an issue with LCDs, especially when dealing with fasting panning during football games. And "old school" LCDs weren't a patch on plasma PQ - and none of the new generation of LCDs surpass plasma quality either - even the X series (although What Hi-Fi may disagree). Plasma technology is still the benchmark to aim for large screen displays, and even that is by no means is perfect. Just look at all the issues that are found on even the latest LCD panels on avforums (or indeed avsforums).

If I were picking a display for purely showing PC or console images then I'd pick LCD, but for DVD and TV broadcasts plasma is still ahead. Plasma technology isn't standing still either - Pioneer have a new technology which is being introduced this year to improve black levels even further, although how that pans out is anyone's guess. My betting is that both these technologies will be the leaders for the next 5 years or so - LCD taking the volume sales but plasma still producing the ultimate picture.