OLED, SED and FLCD General Discussion Thread

[Jeffers01]

Thanks Stuart

Can we have a view on the downsides ie why cant I go and buy each of them now? This can be kept up to date and become a really useful 'technology' reference.

Jeff

[HighDeff]

Thx Stuart, my guess is this technology shortly will rock the World. Philips earlier this year stated that the production cost of OLED will be 1/10th of a similar siced LCD screen. :smashin:

See more of Philips OLED recearch here.:

http://www.research.philips.com/technologies/display/ov_polyled.html

And breakthrough news from Cambridge Display Technology here.:

http://www.cdtltd.co.uk/news/426.asp

[AML]

Ive also heard that theres another type of display/technology similar to "OLED", but its called "PLED".
The "P" being for Polimer.

Dont know much about these screens bit im sure they will eventually be announced.

[lardy]

And breakthrough news from Cambridge Display Technology here.:http://www.cdtltd.co.uk/news/426.aspah me old mucker at Cambridge who tipped the wink to me about CDT and this stuff and swore us to secrecy was in fact right....
We used to make research grade stuff that gave blue LEDs vastly improved emissivity - pity our oriental friends had patented all of the applications after my boss patented the synthesis....stalemate :nono:
Oh for polymer read "organic" - they happen to be polymers which are themselves a type of "organic chemical" .... hence polymer/organic vs. solid state (or inorganic).

[jedi-jae]

But aren't all of these screen types years away?

[Tejstar]

But aren't all of these screen types years away?

Toshiba plan to release SED later this year in Japan, so not light years.

Nice to have a new forum for this very exciting new technology. :thumbsup:

[ba' heid]

Thanks for that Stuart. These technologies have really caught my interest, I have to admit I had not heard of FLCD until now.

Plasma and LCD have been slightly disappointing, not too many I have seen have impressed more than good CRT.

So I'll be reading this thread regularly

Cheers

[oxy]

The Gadget show was looking at technology in south korea etc a few weeks before xmas .

they are years ahead of us in tech terms, they have home broadband speeds of 100mbit. I thought my 10 mbit was fast :rotfl:

They also touched on the subject of Oled displays . They said it would be a great new type of screen but at the moment they could only make them a few inches big .

I reckon it could be quite a while before they can make them big enough and cheep enough for the average Joe to buy

[jedi-jae]

Well, at least in five years or so I'll have something worthwhile upgrading to!

[Max Payne]

the are years ahead of us in tech terms, they have home broadband speeds of 100mbit. I thought my 10 mbit was fast :rotfl:



Have some sympathy for people like me who are still stuck on dial up due to the Irish Government and the main broadband supplier NOT providing the service in rural areas

Jesus! 100MB? Im in work and Im only on a 1mb lan connection!!!!:eek:

[Rimmer]

Does FLCD suffer from flicker, or are the pixels toggled on and off at such a high refresh rate that there is no visible flicker?

[satinder]

I can't wait for this SED technology to come through, its the main reason why i won't buy LCD/Plasma tvs.

[pjskel]

Be vigilant around Aug/Sept time, especially IFA in Berlin. Maybe closer to home near November. ;)

[tek]

Did a bit of reading about OLED recently and just thought I'd put up a few things (mostly from memory, so the following may or may not be true)

Also long and boring for those who already know anything about it.:boring:

:lesson:
OLED, organic light emitting diodes, has two main branches; PLED, Polymer-LED (also known as LEP, light-emitting polymer), and SMOLED, Small Molecule-LED. Within both of these there is another distinction between fluorescent and phosphorescent, but I'm not sure what it is. Both use organic materials (specifically plastics which have been modified to give them a conductivity which is a billion times that of normal plastic!) which are luminescent when a current is passed through them. The major differences are that small-molecule uses, well, material made of small molecules, and polymer, uses... polymers, or long, chained molecules. In terms of fabrication, the smoled material is deposited under vacuum with some kind of evaporation technique (bit more expensive), whereas polymer can processed in a solution, and as a liquid can be printed on using pretty much standard ink jet printer technology. This is one of the main resons it has the potential to be so cheap, ink jet tech is very good and fairly easy to apply to PLED. Another difference is that SMOLED has a coupla year development time advantage over PLED, and is supported by Kodak, whereas PLED i think was developed by the much smaller CDT and has only recently got support from bigger firms. ( <- not sure if that is true)
The one advantage both of these have over say LCD, is that LCD requires both a liquid crystal layer, but also a seperate light source for each pixel (the LCD itself just blocks the light from the light source behind) Both types of OLED have only the light emitting material (a red, blue and green blob of material for each pixel) and no seperate light source.
LCDs have a limited viewing angle, whereas OLEDs have a much wider viewing angle (similar to what you might expect from a flat screen CRT tv)
LCDs have a latency time (which gets worse at lower temperatures), when the LCD layer rearranges. OLEDs don't really have that delay.
As mentioned above, OLEDS can also be put onto a flexible surface, and are much thinner than LCD displays.
There are already products which use OLED tech, but I think are entirely small screens; digital camera, mobile and shaver screens. Difficult to say whether they will make it to the big screen.
I think the problem with PLEDs is that although the polymer used for red and green works very well, and has a lifetime of ~100,000 hours, they are having problems with the blue, which has significantly shorter lifetime. I am pretty sure there are working large screen prototypes tho.

[heath1s]

I first read about Organic LED's about 6 years ago when I used to subscribe to Computer Shopper. They were still in research mode back then. But they were talking about having roll up screens for laptops that fitted in your pocket.

Only difference I can see now, is that some car stereos use the OLED for their small screens.

The only other news i've seen on this is a prototype low res black and white roll up screen shown at this years CES to selected people. About the size of a PDA. So still no good for watching the latest block buster.

The big problem when looking at these future things is when?

The new Canon / Toshiba SED's seem most promising - but will probably due next year for most of us. They look as if they will only be releasing LARGE screens to start with - faster return on investment in high value market.

I'm a big Canon fan as everything I bought has been a quality product with the "Ronseal feel". They seem to be commited to world domination through commercialisation of their R&D efforts. Get to market first, even if the price is high, then the competitors will suffer lower returns by the time you've swalled your R&D costs and lower your prices. Toshiba give them the market credibility that they don't yet have in TV land.

Like many others, I'm not rushing to spend £1,500 on this years slow LCD crop, with artefacting and blue tinted black levels, when in I expect to be stuck with it for 10 years. How gutted will people be when they see the quality of SED!? Although to be fair, where can I go and buy one now, and for what price? It may be 2-3 years.

[hornydragon]

Only difference I can see now, is that some car stereos use the OLED for their small screens.
Yep i have one its OK but not great copes better than older LCD with direct sunlight tho and is very bright i have it on the lowest setting and have to use a black background with dark text otherwise it blinds me while driving at night,

Great idea that one Kenwood! :lesson:

[arn]

hornydragon
Distinguished Member

hornydragon's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The dark underbelly of humanity
Posts: 16,287


16287 posts :god:

Get some sleep man ;)

[kiero]

Wish I'd known of this proir to shelling out 2,700quid on a pioneer 436XDE in Nov05.:(

[MokerJoker]

Thanks Stuart

Can we have a view on the downsides ie why cant I go and buy each of them now? This can be kept up to date and become a really useful 'technology' reference.

Jeff

I'd like to see that as well. From what I've remembered:

Downsides of OLED/PLED:
- Color control (difficult to get uniform and accurate colors)
- Lifespan
- Brightness?

SED
Don't know about specific downsides, but I remember reading about this technology many years ago and still it is not available.

[astonbilla]

Will SED have perfect geometry like LCDs and Plasmas?

[rnicoll]

Will SED have perfect geometry like LCDs and Plasmas?
Should do, yes, as you it uses a grid of electron emitters.

(edited to reword slightly)

[FlyingBig]

I really hope this technology does not suffer from dead/stuck pixels. If it doesn't then i am sold already :thumbsup:

[Tyler Durden]

Just found this, thought I'd copy and paste it here:

Looks like some of the dates they talk about have already slipped a lot!

SED The New Screen on the Block

Looking for a lofty vision? A new display technology called SED promises to not only be the next big thing in flat panel hang-on-the-wall TV, but to replace and all-but-eliminate everything that has come before, by offering better picture quality at a lower price.

Despite the seemingly ever-expanding array of new thin screen and projection display technologies÷plasma, LCD, DLP, LCoS, OLED, etc.÷good old-fashioned 50-year old color CRT technology remains the gold standard of picture quality. So what if you could take the front surface of a CRT-type display, using the exact same phosphors as conventional TV sets, and eliminate the depth by using a new thin-screen technology to replace the "electron gun" that makes picture tubes so deep? Youâd have the best of both worlds — a truly CRT-like picture you could hang on a wall. That's SED.

WHO'S BEHIND SED?

If you've never heard of SED until now, the acronym stands for Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display — that may be because Toshiba and Canon, the two companies betting on this promising new display technology, have done very little to promote it,. That will change, because they're gearing up to make a big splash in 2007, with the first SED factory beginning production this August, in Japan. Both companies have been so hush-hush that at January's Consumer Electronics Show, journalists and editors were actually turned away from the invite-only SED demo, and not always nicely.

Custom Retailer Senior Editor Joe Paone was one of the lucky ones who got a sneak preview. "It was really paranoid, cloak-and-dagger stuff with the demo, I felt like Deep Throat was going to give the pitch," he says. "They showed a 36-inch, 720p model against unidentified (likely uncalibrated), similarly-sized LCD and plasma panels. I was impressed. They scrolled the alphabet along the bottom of the screen and there were no trails or artifacts whatsoever. The whole demo lasted about 15 minutes and they hustled us out of there quickly."

Other published reports by those who have seen the SED demo (it was also shown in Japan at CEATEC last year) speak in glowing terms of SED's terrific black levels and ability to show dark picture material. (Contrast ratio is claimed to be 8600:1.)

"Yes, I saw the CES demo," said Mike Mike Tsinberg, president of Key Digital Systems, a manufacturer of video switchers and processors. "I think SED is the ultimate TV display because it is the best in four categories: First, pixels are addressable, like other digital image devices such as LCD, Plasma, DLP, and DILA. Second, it uses phosphors for color. Phosphors make the best color. Third, the time decay of pixels are phenomenal. That makes SED temporal (motion) resolution the best among any display today — none are as fast as SED. Fourth, it uses 'tunneling' electrons for phosphor excitement - this takes much less power than plasma, and I believe is far more reliable."

Hype for SED may not have rolled into high gear yet, but behind the scenes, the machinery is coming into place for a big time rollout. Canon and Toshiba have pledged $1.8 billion to the SED joint venture, called SED Inc.. For Canon, known for cameras, camcorders and copiers but not for displays, SED offers a chance to instantly become a substantial player in a new market. Toshiba, of course, is the up-and-coming Japanese R&D star who rocked the world a decade ago with DVD innovations rivaling Sony and Philips.

SED isn't the first attempt to create a thin CRT-like display, but may be the first to succeed. Last year Canon bought up the patents for "ThinCRT" displays from a bankrupt company called Candescent, which was working on a similar FED (field emission display) technology. Candescent had already been working with Sony on FED technology. Published reports from last summer, when Sony introduced their new TV line, indicated that the company is continuing to develop this technology, but doesn't feel it's ready to market yet. The technology that Sony's working on is sometimes referred to as "CNT FED", with CNT standing for carbon nanotube, which is a slightly different electron emitter technology from that used in SED.

HOW DOES SED WORK?

The underlying concept behind SED is seemingly obvious. Instead of re-inventing the wheel with a whole new screen technology, start with what everybody knows and loves: The front surface of a traditional cathode ray tube (CRT). By combining this front surface with a new way of shooting electrons at it, and with the electrons at the same voltage as a CRT (about 10,000-volts) the exact same color phosphors can be used on the screen. It looks almost identical to a normal color TV screen, except that even in wide-screen configuration, it is perfectly flat. And it can hang on a wall.

So how does it work? True to its Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display acronym, there is a separate electron emitter for each pixel of the display. The back of the screen is coated with metal, the positive side of a high voltage (10-kV) is applied here. The negative side of the high voltage is applied to the substrate of the electron emitter panel, which is separated from the back of the screen by a vacuum. The high voltage is not enough to arc across this vacuum. However, when low-voltage electrons from the electron-emitter panel cross an extremely thin slit (just a few nanometers wide), some of them scatter and are accelerated by the 10-kV charge, hitting the back of the screen with this high voltage charge. This triggers the colored phosphor dots on the front side of the screen to illuminate, just as in an ordinary CRT screen.

The electron emitter substrate panel has a layer of ultrafine palladium oxide (PdO). This is where the microscopic slits are located÷each representing one color pixel of the image.

The scattering of electrons as they cross a microscopic gap, a byproduct of the "tunneling effect," is part of the realm of nanotechnology÷the study of tiny particle science. This is the crucial aspect of SED that could not be developed 50 years ago, when CRT technology was invented.

Nanotechnology has become increasingly important as the electron pathways used in integrated circuits — such as Pentium processor chips — become ever narrower (in some cases just a few electrons wide!). In nanotechnology, the wave-like nature of atomic particles' electrons becomes a dominant aspect of their behavior.

The "scattered" electrons have essentially gone astray from the path they were trying to take÷to get to the other side of the slit. This straying effect is what makes SED work. Itâs a bit like what might happen if you poured a bucket of ping pong balls into another bucket÷while most would go into the second bucket, a few of them might bounce out and scatter on the floor.

Besides offering better picture quality, SED is also more energy efficient than plasma and LCD technologies, the developers say, requiring roughly one third to one half the wattage-per-lumen of comparably sized competitors.

The thickness of the entire display has been reported to be less than a few centimeters, and as little as 7mm! No details regarding weight have been announced. Neither has there been any mention of how long the SED display is projected to last, which, of course, has been an issue for other display technologies.

Although last January's CES demo showed a 36-inch 720p unit, the companies say there are no plans to market this pre-production prototype. Instead, their first commercial product will be a 50-inch unit with 1080p (1920 x 1080) resolution. Contrast ratio will be a whopping 8600:1. Response time — meaning how quickly an image can appear or disappear — will be just 1-millisecond. (A frame of video lasts for 33-milliseconds.)

When Will SED Be Real?

The first SED panels are scheduled for manufacture in August, 2005, but this will only be small-lot production of about 3,000 SED screens per month. These early units are expected to be available at retail by the beginning of 2006.

Full-scale production (15,000 units per month) is set for 2007, ramping up to shipments of 3-million units by 2010. In addition to the 50-inch screen, a 40-inch unit is also planned. SED Inc.'s projections predict that SED will hold a 20 percent share of the 40-inch and larger TV market by 2010.

Canon began working on the underlying concepts of SED as far back as 1986, and first signed a codevelopment agreement with Toshiba in 1999. Canon's printing and micro-fabrication technology experience will be utilized in manufacturing the large electron-emitter substrate panels, the companies say, complemented by Toshiba's expertise in phosphor-coated screens and semiconductors.

With joint R&D spanning more than half a decade and barely any publicity, the companies wanted to keep the technology under wraps until they had reduced manufacturing costs to the point where it could be competitive. Price projections released by the companies indicate that by 2010, they expect the average retail price per SED screen to be under 70,000-yen (under $700 at current exchange rates).

CHEAPER AND BETTER?

What's so exciting and unusual about SED is that it is superior on practically every front: picture quality, price, viewing angle, and power consumption. Until now, choosing a display technology for any given home theater installation has involved going through a series of trade-offs regarding price and longevity. Now, one technology may truly blow away the competition by sheer technical superiority.

Price, of course, is the key to all this: If plasma or LCD are still cheaper than SED by 2010, then all bets are off. With ever-dropping prices for these more established flat panel technologies, SED is shooting for a moving price target.

Still, it would seem to have a number of inherent advantages. Articles appearing in manufacturing-oriented publications such as Nikkei Electronics Asia confirm that Toshiba and Canon have indeed developed an inexpensive fabrication process for SED.

But from a pure picture-quality perspective, SED technology leverages some 50+ years of research into making the red, green, and blue color phosphors that coat the inside of the CRT picture tube. Among video aficionados, Toshiba has received praise over the years (from "gurus" such as Joe Kane) for offering outstanding CRT TV sets with excellent, temperature-correct color fidelity.

If SED's lifespan proves to be anywhere near the reliability of CRT technology (which currently beats all competition for longevity), that would be yet another SED advantage, and another nail in the coffins of everything else.

IMPACT ON CUSTOM

The SED publicity bandwagon may not have started yet, but it will, and your customers will likely start asking about it before it becomes widely available. This is technology focused on the wide-screen high definition digital TV marketplace of 2007 and beyond, not 2005.

Though SED screen sizes may get bigger, for the foreseeable future they will not compete with front projection, or even big rear projection screen sizes.

Initially SED will only be available in two screen sizes — 40 and 50-inches. At first SED may still not be the most economical choice — initially, it may cost just as much or even more than comparable-size plasma or LCD models. Following the usual curve, prices will go down only after economies of scale kick in.

But as SED actually becomes available beginning in early 2006, custom retailers should keep a close eye on this late-to-the-party display technology, and its progress. SED may end up stealing the show. -Cliff Roth

[The Atheist]

Does anybody know if this technology can be utilised on a smaller scale - say for flat panel PC/Mac monitors - or will it be limited to large format displays??

[misterjingo]

Does anybody know if this technology can be utilised on a smaller scale - say for flat panel PC/Mac monitors - or will it be limited to large format displays??
As far as I am aware, it can be utilised on smaller screens. But as someone stated above, the first screens of this technology (SED) will aim for the larger screen market where they will get a return faster.

[The Atheist]

ye i get that, i was just curious about further applications, specifically if there was a size limitation!

[spennyg]

Hi,
Was holding out for SED about a year and a half ago and then thought - it's years away - so dived in and went for Plasma. Really glad I did as I love my screen, despite the artefacts and quirks. However, still hoping for SED one day...

In the mean time, has anyone head about 'Electronic Ink'? This is basically a 'does what it says on the tin' type thing - it really is electronic ink. And so all the nastiness of 'outdoor displays' such being invisibile in sunlight become a thing of the past, as this really is watching moving, 'printed' images (well, sort of!) Anyway, it's reflected light, not projected. Not sure if it'll ever be the thing of AV dreams (probably best suited to digital camera displays / i-pods and the like), but it's pretty damned sexy stuff (saddo that I am).

Take a look here... http://www.eink.com/products/index.html

[Tejstar]

I think they showed some prototypes at this years CES, looks very interesting and oculd be huge in the future - especially for things like newspaper reading and the like. Shame it's only in B&W… for now!

[Partisan Zoya]

Can't wait for SED's, I may not buy an lcd or plasma, and just wait for the SED range to pick up, however long it may be:grin:

[Tejstar]

Looks like you'll be waiting until at least 2008 then! ;)

[ozzzy189]

I wanted a display for my xbox360 so i could go HD, i really wanted to wait, but by the time SED comes out, the 360 will be towards the end of it`s life. As an interim i got a sagem hdD45F dlp for £840 brand new. I think SED will be the one to get, but it seems to have gone a bit quiet in SED land.

[Tejstar]

My only concern is that the technology will get delayed. It's meant to be released at the end of 2007 in Japan and then Europe in 2008.

It's seemed like it has been a 'next-year' technology for a while though...

[Aitch_Kay]

The big manufacturers are only now getting their money back on plasmas ..... they will milk it for a good few years before these better technologies make it into the market ..... 2010 at the earliest I reckon :(

[endora]

There was a news on a French website saying that SAMSUNG would launch a 40" LED TV in September for just under $3000 but there were no other details.

Here is the link (sorry it is in French):
http://www.bestofmicro.com/actualite/18609-tv-samsung-led.html


Could it be true?

[spennyg]

Hi,

Had a look at this, did an awful Google translation, and then found very similar on Gixmondo:

http://uk.gizmodo.com/2006/08/08/samsung_ledbacklit_lcd_tv_comi.html

[sundayraver]

Hi guys, just a thought but when SED comes out expect to pay a HIGH price, wait a couple of years and they'll be bargains, not to mention improved screens. The LCD's and Plasmas are constantly improving, I imagine the SED's LOL's PMSL's and the XXXGTI TV's will start off slowly and expensive and gradually improve in quality and drop in price. I have an LCD panny 32lxd60 which launched at over a grand, I picked mine up for 814 quid and after 3 weeks of me purchasing it the price has dropped by £20. This LCD will keep me happy for a good 5 years, by then I hope to pick up a top quality set for half the price I spent on my LCD!

[Pondle]

Obviously Toshiba and Canon are going to want to charge a premium for their new SED TVs when they're released, in part to recoup the R&D costs. The only problem is that premium priced hi-tech is not where the market is heading.

The reason cited for the delay in producing a commercial SED TV is the need to make the technology more cost competitive with LCD and plasma. Prices are for flat-panels are falling continuously, so it's going to be a challenge! (http://www.displaysearch.com/free/pricewise.html#LCD%20TV)

Not only are prices falling, but both older flat-panel technologies are making improvements in size, colour fidelity and resolution, so it's hard to see SED having many immediately apparent advantages come the scheduled release date of Q4 2007.

Personally I'm hoping SED does go into production, but the constant delays are not encouraging.

[enator]

IFA 2006: Toshiba SED Blows Away LCD & Plasma
http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=3364

[Pondle]

I wonder what size that prototype is? It looks like exactly the same 36in design they wheeled out at CES. So much for the 55in that was promised. Is any progress at all being made on SED?

[mxcl]

I worked at Kodak 3 years ago, and recall being told that a problem with OLED screens was the material had a large affinity for water, yet when sufficiently "wet" it would break down.

Probably they've somewhat fixed this, but when I worked there a digital camera with an OLED screen was released which apparently had about half an inch of desiccant bhind it to preserve its lifetime somewhat (dessiccant's absorb water).

And tellingly I've not heard of many applications of OLED screens since.

So my money is on SEDs. I think PLEDs may suffer less from this problem as they are longer chain molecules, whilst OLEDs are oligimers, which are 10-100 molecule chains.

I'm not sure how accurate this information is, but I had a sudden urge to divulge it :)

I too want one of these new screens asap, my LCD can't do dark scenes to save its life, and nobody makes CRTs anymore.

[Maximum_B]

Obviously Toshiba and Canon are going to want to charge a premium for their new SED TVs when they're released, in part to recoup the R&D costs. The only problem is that premium priced hi-tech is not where the market is heading.


They'll charge according to demand and that will depend on the technologies performance compared to Plasma and LCD at that time. The R&D won't be factored in because only a tiny minority will pay for a technical innovation like that. Initially they may get a premium price for a superior product but the price will be relative to similar screens of Plasma/LCD type. The early price premiums for Plasma and LCD were due to their being flat, wall hangable and slim relative to CRT, SED's sole selling point over them is a decreasing lead in image quality. Pioneer are highly regarded for their Plasma sets but they struggle to sell them for their premium price.

I suspect that Toshiba & Canon have continued with SED because if they can crack production issues they may be able to produce the screens more cheaply, and bigger than Plasma/LCD. If you knew that competing technologies were catching-up, would you throw money developing something new that cost more to make?

At the moment Plasma appears to be losing against LCD. Canon and Toshiba could make a fortune if they can make SED screens more cheaply than LCD. The market may be heading away from Hi-tech premium but you can bet your life that Toshiba is aware of this.

[Pondle]

I hope you're right that the SED will be competitively priced. My concern is that the new product involves heavy upfront costs - not just the R&D, but creating an entirely new production facility (at Hiratsuka City, I think). There's also the issue of economies of scale - until output ramps up, unit costs will be relatively high.

[Maximum_B]

They had to create new production facilities for plasma and LCD and now that the margins and unit prices have plummeted they are still creating more! I suspect that the initial factories are more expensive than the later ones.

The biggest threat to SED is that Toshiba/Canon may not achieve the yields they need to keep the unit cost down, I got the impression that not being able to make the things was what was causing the delays.

[HighDeff]

Video interview from IFA 2006, last week on Toshiba SED.:

http://ifa2006.net/toshiba-sed/

[stanleyntl]

Sony tell me they are looking at OLED and SED for their next generation displays. I don't think I can hold out that long, I need a screen now & Bravia yukk!!!:mad:

[enator]

Sony tell me they are looking at OLED and SED for their next generation displays. I don't think I can hold out that long, I need a screen now & Bravia yukk!!!:mad:
From whom you got this information in Sony???

[stanleyntl]

From, Denise McAlister, (on behalf of Sony UK MD). Not Customer service hearsay!

[Pondle]

OLED maybe, but SED is a proprietary Toshiba/Canon technology, surely this is patented.

Of course SED is part of a wider category of Field Emissive Displays (FEDs), so perhaps this is what she means.

[Maximum_B]

OLED maybe, but SED is a proprietary Toshiba/Canon technology, surely this is patented.


Patents and technologies are always licenceable. In fact I believe there are several instances of this in LCD and Plasma displays. For example Samsung and Sony have cross licensing agreements and I understand Sony also buys panels from Samsung - so it's not likely to have any issues with buying or licensing from Toshiba.

[bliss007]

added to fact Sharp invented LCD's so obv licensed out.

[enator]

Yes move your ass SED :grin:
http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2006/09/10/afx3005338.html

[neilmcl]

You're still be waiting for at least a cople of years before anything affordable hits our shores.

[paulm187]

You're still be waiting for at least a cople of years before anything affordable hits our shores.

It will be atleast 2010 before SED becomes affordable. I'm getting a LCD now, by that time it will be time to upgrade.

[enator]

surprise and wonder :thumbsup:
http://www.sed-tv-reviews.com/surprise-and-wonder-toshibas-vision-of-the-future-of-sed-tv.html

[Aitch_Kay]

Yup, old Tosh seem to be hyping SED big time .....

http://www3.toshiba.co.jp/sed/eng/future/index.htm

BUT it looks like 3D TV will be here in only 3 years instead !!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5360742.stm

[sooperscoop]

Toshiba to start production in 2008

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2006-10-03T022418Z_01_TKU002555_RTRUKOC_0_US-JAPAN-CANON-TOSHIBA.xml&WTmodLoc=TechNewsHome_C1_%5bFeed%5d-5

[Aitch_Kay]

Why is the commercial success of SED in doubt ...... doesn't it blow Plasma/LCD picture quality out the water ??

[aa421]

The problem is whether SED TVs can be produced at a low enough price to be competitive with LCD and plasma. If they have spent 1.7 billion dollars on the research and manufacturing plant, then if they sell about 5 million SED TVs, they need to recoup about 300 dollars of research costs on each TV. I don't know how that compares with LCD and plasma, but it sounds like a lot to me.

[Pondle]

New 55in SED prototype shown at CEATEC in Japan - http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/03/55-inch-sed-hdtvs-on-the-way-in-08/

In principle, I agree with the post about the difficult economies of scale for this technology. However, Toshiba are boasting about production breakthroughs that will enable SED to be more cost competitive - http://news.com.com/Toshiba+unveils+TV+challenger+to+LCDs,+plasmas/2100-1041_3-6122031.html

[hamster]

They keep waiting and doing more R&D to cut cost out...sounds to me like they are in trouble.

The best thing is to start production to drive process yields up and to start early anyway before the LCD guys suicidally drive prices even lower. IF they aren't able to even start they must be in deep doo-doo.

[enator]

Much better picture here
http://www.dagbladet.no/dinside/2006/10/04/478712.html

[rupbert]

Image quality looks astonishing!

[KyoDash]

Absolutely stunning! But sadly I'm probably the only person here who isn't exited about SED anymore.

Ultimately it still doesn't solve the biggest probelem about a panel display, it's fixed resolution. Meaning that while 1080p will look amazingly good, everything else will look very poor due to scaling. You're not going to find a £1000 scaler in an SED are you, plus even they don't preserve the image enough compared to it being displayed naitively on a CRT.

Maybe we should be looking at these instead:

http://www.dcviews.com/press/CRT-LCD-editorial.htm

[Pondle]

I think these have been discussed a while back in the CRT forum. They are interesting but they can't really achieve large screen sizes, I'm guessing they'll still be fairly heavy, and the fact that there's been little news since 2004/2005 isn't encouraging.

[hamster]

Absolutely stunning! But sadly I'm probably the only person here who isn't exited about SED anymore.

Ultimately it still doesn't solve the biggest probelem about a panel display, it's fixed resolution. Meaning that while 1080p will look amazingly good, everything else will look very poor due to scaling. You're not going to find a £1000 scaler in an SED are you, plus even they don't preserve the image enough compared to it being displayed naitively on a CRT.

Maybe we should be looking at these instead:

http://www.dcviews.com/press/CRT-LCD-editorial.htm

It's not true that CRTs don't have prblems with scaling - you get problems instead with the shadowmask pitch compared to the scan lines - hence moire issues. Smaller mask pitches are not possible as light output drops off, along with mechanical robustness, so adding in transport and microphony issues.

Secondly, a CRT's focus spot size limits the resolution, especially outside of th ecentre area. Even so-called HD tubes achieve only something like SD resolution in the corners.

[Tejstar]

Absolutely stunning!

Especially the one on the left! ;)

Joking aside, I really hope Toshiba can start producing these screens cost effectively. I've been keeping an eye on SED technology for some time and it seems to be a marked improvement over LCDs and Plasmas. The problem is that, being realistic, the screens are unlikely to hit the UK before end of 2008/2009. A long time wait yet...

[J1mbo]

Bloody hell! Just saw the image on the SED promo pic! With image resolution like this it's going to make life very hard for me and my collegues in the TV and film industry - you'll see every little mistake and blemish! Total nightmare!:eek:

[KyoDash]

Secondly, a CRT's focus spot size limits the resolution, especially outside of th ecentre area. Even so-called HD tubes achieve only something like SD resolution in the corners.

Maybe with the TV's that are available have this issue, and I know some poorly made monitors do. However there are a few arcade monitors 25" 16:9 in size that can do 240p to 768p naitively without any issues in the corners.

My CRT PC monitor can do 768 resolution with HD detail everywhere on screen, and that blows away anything I've seen on a panel. The image is slightly softer yes, but all the detail is still visable and just as crisp.

From what I've seen you can achive 1080p on a 23" wide CRT (not Slim) and still have the correct resolution on screen. It costs more to produce that kind of quality, but if they have been doing this in arcade and PC monitors they can do the same for TV's.

They should just release a 23 to 28" multi-sync CRT TV which isn't slim, that can do at least 480i to 1080p. Problem solved, sadly that's not fashionable.

It pains me to see how quality is being left behind in order to have flat and on the wall displays.

[NicolasB]

Even so-called HD tubes achieve only something like SD resolution in the corners.It would be very easy to make a 65", 1080p CRT television with image quality good right up to the corners. But it would be commercial suicide. The tube would have to be close to five feet long, so it would simply be too big and too heavy and no one would buy it. (People care far more about TVs being thin than they care about the quality of the picture).

Personally I think the industry abandoned CRT projection (and rear-projection) far too early, but... (shrug).

[KyoDash]

It would be very easy to make a 65", 1080p CRT television with image quality good right up to the corners

That it would, but 65", christ I just want a reasonable 28" or 25" normal tube versions. Cheap and easy, but hey, it isn't happening.

[hamster]

Maybe with the TV's that are available have this issue, and I know some poorly made monitors do. However there are a few arcade monitors 25" 16:9 in size that can do 240p to 768p naitively without any issues in the corners.

My CRT PC monitor can do 768 resolution with HD detail everywhere on screen, and that blows away anything I've seen on a panel. The image is slightly softer yes, but all the detail is still visable and just as crisp.

From what I've seen you can achive 1080p on a 23" wide CRT (not Slim) and still have the correct resolution on screen. It costs more to produce that kind of quality, but if they have been doing this in arcade and PC monitors they can do the same for TV's.

They should just release a 23 to 28" multi-sync CRT TV which isn't slim, that can do at least 480i to 1080p. Problem solved, sadly that's not fashionable.

It pains me to see how quality is being left behind in order to have flat and on the wall displays.

I absolutely agree with your last remark...

In fact the superflat tubes were about the best for image quality. The problem is that the electron beam hits the screen more obliquely in the corners, spreading out the spot. Just look at a set showing noise and see the splodged out noise spots at the corner.

Even with horizontal and vertical DAF (Dynamic focussing) it was hard to get a proper black / white checkerboard without just mushy grey corners in 1080 resolution. Turning the tube drive down and watching in the dark obviously made it possible.

Monitor tubes can also achieve such resolutions, but at the expense of their huge depth and weedy light output (typically 50-60Cd/sqm) not a TV's 70-90.

I've just gone back to a 100Hz CRT after an unpleasant 2 weeks with a 32" LCD, but then I'm some kind of nutter who likes picture quality. And to be fair the CRT has its fair share of artefacts, they are just less unpleasant.

[erik1974]

A very good information website about OLED and SED products is http://www.oled-display.net/oled or http://www.oled.at for german.

[Richuu]

I don't think people particularly wanted flat screens, they wanted larger ones, and flat made large more palatable. You don't hear of many people saying "Yeah, I really wanted a thin screen, and this 28" model made an excellent replacement for my 28" CRT." It's more like "Look at my new 42" beast of a telly". But the picture's average. "I don't care, it's huuuuuuuuuuge!!"

[Richuu]

But personally, my 28" Panasonic CRT is doing a reasonable job, and I hope it holds up long enough to be able to replace it with something good, rather than something average or below.

[ziggy66]

This is a new one to me. Cheaper but still on the horizon, carbon nanotubes, what next?

Tim

http://news.cnet.co.uk/televisions/0,39029698,49285026,00.htm

[fraggle]

It would be very easy to make a 65", 1080p CRT television with image quality good right up to the corners. But it would be commercial suicide. The tube would have to be close to five feet long, so it would simply be too big and too heavy and no one would buy it. (People care far more about TVs being thin than they care about the quality of the picture).

Personally I think the industry abandoned CRT projection (and rear-projection) far too early, but... (shrug).

<choke>

Think about how thick the front glass would have to be. I'd guess at 6" thick, taking into account all the layers. (bullet proof glass is thinner, it doesn't have to take huge pressure over its entire area 24/7/365/25)

The main reason there were very few 36" TVs is because of the necessary thickness and weight of the front glass (required so the whole tube doesn't implode under the vaccum -ve pressure)

A 65" CRT? Better build a concrete slab where that babys going, cause no floor boards are going to take it!! And just what are the Comet delivery men going to say when you say your new 1 ton TV has got to go up 3 flights of stairs?

CRTs are dead.

There are people who don't like plasmas/LCDs, but if people like me didn't buy them, the manufacturers wouldn't be able to fund the R&D into future products that'll make all current displays look utterly crud.

So stop your whining and be glad others are happy and funding research!!!! :)

[Gadget Freak]

My last crt tv weighed about 80 kilos and that was a 36'', I'd hate to think what anything bigger would come in at. CRT had to go if screen sizes were to get bigger.