Toshiba 50" 1920x1080 SED display

[StooMonster]

http://www.hdbeat.com/2005/09/12/tos...-big-with-sed/

Not LCD, plasma ... what is SED?
http://www.hdbeat.com/2005/08/16/sed...ogy-explained/

StooMonster

[AML]

Nice!
About time! Im sure Toshiba will plan the release of SED to coincide with HD DVD!

Any idea on price and actual release date?

50" upwards with 1080p! Just hope they give us good response time, no screen burining and good contrast and brightnes.
Also hope they give us more than ONE hdcp conection!!

*Found this link which says march 2006.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050907PR210.html

[welwynnick]

It emerged a few days ago that SED would be launched in March next year. Toshiba suggested that the cost would be comparable with plasma, but someone reckoned that it would be around £10k, at least to begin with. That sounds too much, but SED does seem to tick every box in everyone’s wish list.

Large display;
High resolution;
thin wall-hanging panel;
low power consumption;
light weight;
bright enough for daylight viewing;
1 ms response time,
more than one HDMI input.
Oh – and 100,000:1 contrast!

Can hardly wait.

Nick

[bbdivo]

Theres also something called OLED somewhere on the horizon, though I think it may be further down the line than SED, there are some small devices using OLED already but no large panels yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED

however dealtime has a samsung 21" OLED panel but its "Not currently available for sale"!

http://uk.shopping.com/xPP-flat_panel_televisions--oled

[neil c]

Originally Posted by welwynnick

It emerged a few days ago that SED would be launched in March next year. Toshiba suggested that the cost would be comparable with plasma, but someone reckoned that it would be around £10k, at least to begin with. That sounds too much, but SED does seem to tick every box in everyone’s wish list.

Large display;
High resolution;
thin wall-hanging panel;
low power consumption;
light weight;
bright enough for daylight viewing;
1 ms response time,
more than one HDMI input.
Oh – and 100,000:1 contrast!

Can hardly wait.

Nick

Those specs are ridiculous, thats a dream TV and I'm talkin on a dream girl scale.

Posts like this will probably keep me from buying a new TV for years. I was planning on holding out until decent 32" 1080i/p LCDs were available at sub £1000, but I may wait for SED now. I can't see much point in buying a set that has less than 1080 res, seeing as this will soon become the industry standard for broadcasts.

My recent Z3 projector purchase taught me a few lessons on the AV purchase front, i.e. check the date of the last price cut, and bloody WAIT! It's not going to be outdated anytime soon, but no one likes to lose money.

[loadsofleads]

The blurb states that it is 'based on CRT technology'......doesn't that make it an analogue based screen, not good for the future in HDTV methinks
Although I must admit to getting wood at the talk of OLED, but I won't be holding my breath for that one anytime soon

[NicolasB]

Originally Posted by taffyboyo

The blurb states that it is 'based on CRT technology'......doesn't that make it an analogue based screen

No.

[AML]

A bit vague, but I agree with NicolasB's answer. Just because it CRT technology doesnt mean it has to be an analog device.

If you really think about it even a plasma or an LCD is analog in some way.
The display we watch has to be analog other wise we wouldnt be able to see it. (our eyes are analog) Every TV converts a digital signal to an analog picture we can watch.

[paolo999]

Originally Posted by AML

A bit vague, but I agree with NicolasB's answer. Just because it CRT technology doesnt mean it has to be an analog device.

If you really think about it even a plasma or an LCD is analog in some way.
The display we watch has to be analog other wise we wouldnt be able to see it. (our eyes are analog) Every TV converts a digital signal to an analog picture we can watch.

Yes - and also they may be mentioning this to infer CRT qualities (e.g. the contrast - always a weakness of current LCD and Plasma)

[StooMonster]

...and the black levels.

SED sounds fantastic to me. Leveraging old technology (CRT) with new approach (pixel arrays) is genius. Can't wait to see what the picture looks like for myself.

StooMonster

[NicolasB]

There is one very important sense in which CRT is "analogue", and that's that it isn't a fixed pixel device. The intensity of the electron beam varies continuously as it sweeps across the phosphors, rather than being constant for the whole of any one particular pixel and then changing sharply at the pixel boundary.

This gives CRT two big advantages:


1) It can work at any resolution (up to the allowed maximum) and look good. Fixed pixel devices need to display a picture the same resolution as the screen, which usually requires scaling somewhere along the line.


2) Particularly in the horizontal direction, this gives you much the same effect as scaling up the image to a very high resolution. If the signal contains a black pixel next to white pixel, what appears on the screen will actually vary smoothly from black to white via a grey gradient rather than having a sharp black/white transition.

I suspect it is this that makes anamorphic DVDs look so good when played on a CRT projector - you get an effective boost to the horizontal resolution.


SED will not have either of these capabilities. And of course it will be subject to screen burn. But it should have CRT's excellent black level and response time.

[AML]

I thought SED wouldnt suffer from screen burning! If it does then I dont think ill be getting one. I plan to play next gen hi def games on what ever screen I use from now on so plasma and SED may have to go out the window for me.

Once these sets come out we will have more accurate information regarding good points and bad.

[welwynnick]

SED may not be too susceptible to screen burn. My line of thought is:

Normal CRTs use one scanning electron bean to sequencially draw all the pixels in the frame.
Plasmas don't address pixels individually, but use combinations of parallel data and addressing lines to control pixels.
Plasma pixels are illuminated one row at a time - the picture is still scanned - but line by line, not pixel by pixel.
SED will presumably write the pixels in the same way as plasma.
That means each individual pixel is illuminated much longer - for the time it would have taken to illuminate all 1920 pixels in a line.
Therefore each pixel will not have to be driven so hard to generate the same average luminance.
That reduced stress should translate into reduced phosphor burn. (I hope)

I don't know enough about phosphors to know if that is a valid argument, but it seemed credible to me. What do you think?

Nick

[NicolasB]

But aren't plasmas generally more susceptible to screen burn than CRTs?

[expat]

Has anyone following this thread actually seen an SED display in action? I know Toshiba was showing them at the IFA in Berlin, but the demonstrations were for invited guests only.