Canon is clear to launch a new type of TV after winning a patent lawsuit about SED technology that has delayed its progress for more than 3 years.

http://digg.com/tech_news/Canon_can_legally_produce_SED_TVs_now/p.jpg

SED TVs can produce the wide viewing angle and deep colours of a traditional CRT, but are as thin as a LCD, or Plasma display.

A couple of weeks ago someone had posted a add from Canon Japan that said they were hiring people for SED production in one of their plants there. While it was clear that it was for SED, there was no mention of what the purpose of the screens were going to be. Could have been pre-production reasearch, or all out mass production of TV screens.

Right now it is a wait and see game.

And if it comes about it will really put pressure on current technologies.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/127365/ceatec_toshiba_canon_show_55inch_sed_tv.html

This is why I bought a decent LCD but low end. If I had bought a Kuro Elite I would be kicking myself in the rear.

Lets hope it comes about.

Auditors dream maybe around the corner.

Cband
I am suprised that Auditor has not found this thread already.

I too am waiting for a better alternative to the LCD/Plasma domimation. While Kuros are good sets for sure, I will not worship one like many here seem to.

OLED will have it's own issues, but we will see if we can live with them. IMO OLED is going to happen in the future, in better examples than the little Sony set.

FED Inc. or what ever their name is will run out of money without ever producing a product. I think that is a dead end.

SED is an unknown at the moment.

When all of these techs come to some form of marketable maturity, I will be ready to replace at least one of my sets. I hope there are some better alternatives at that time.

now we will see if this nano proprietary joke was really a scapegoat for canon's production failures as some said. if i find out this delay was due to a patent whore ill be pissed. congrats to canon anyway.

I'd like to see one in person. oldcband, that article is two years old so I wonder how it really stacks up to today's TVs that are two generations newer, with a third generation coming this spring.

I realize nobody really knows for sure, but if the neoplasmas live up to their promises, the only advantage I see to SED is the absence of phosphor trails? IR isn't a problem for me on my Panasonic and SED should have the same uneven wear concerns, right?

I apologize for being a bit ignorant on the topic, but after LaserVue you can hopefully understand my skepticism.

I'd like to see one in person. oldcband, that article is two years old so I wonder how it really stacks up to today's TVs that are two generations newer, with a third generation coming this spring.
The big question that all of us have.

I realize nobody really knows for sure, but if the neoplasmas live up to their promises, the only advantage I see to SED is the absence of phosphor trails? IR isn't a problem for me on my Panasonic and SED should have the same uneven wear concerns, right?

Since SED will use phosphors yes there could be uneven aging of the materials. What no one knows is the type they will use. Plasma had burn in issues because of the type of phosphors they needed to use, they have gotten allot better but IR is still an issue. Will there still be green trails? Who knows, this is from the green phosphor decay time being longer than the red and blue, but not all people see it.

OLED may suffer from the same issues with uneven aging of RGB and may need to have some color correction after some years of use (it seems that the material they use for blue in many cases ages quicker and loses luminance).

Applied Nanotech has waved it's right to appeal the ruling, but it may be too late for Canon to proceed on introducing SED product.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/02/canon-cleared-to-resume-work-on-sed-tv-now-that-the-world-doesn/

Key excerpt: (From the horse's mouth.)

"it may actually be too late for Canon to even salvage the win, with president Tsuneji Uchida noting that "at times like this, new display products are not introduced much because people would laugh at them.""

And if it comes about it will really put pressure on current technologies.

Or not. It will still suffer some of Plasma's problems - it has phosphors. Canon has said they will get 100,000:1 contrast. That's 1/10th of OLED's 1,000,000:1. Personally, I'm holding out for that. And since it's probably 5 years off that's why I bought a moderate LCD (not too low end), that will make a fine bedroom TV or something once OLED is out and proven.

Or not. It will still suffer some of Plasma's problems - it has phosphors. Canon has said they will get 100,000:1 contrast. That's 1/10th of OLED's 1,000,000:1. Personally, I'm holding out for that. And since it's probably 5 years off that's why I bought a moderate LCD (not too low end), that will make a fine bedroom TV or something once OLED is out and proven.

SED shouldn't have any problems that weren't present on CRT tubes since the technology is basically the same except for individual emitters replacing the scanning electron gun. Along the sames lines, theoretically it should perform at least as well as the best CRT displays with the added advantage of not suffering from geometry or convergence issues (caused by the scanning electron beam).

People poke fun at SED since it has been vaporware for the past couple of years but if someone were to actually come out and announce production models nobody would be laughing at it.

Cband
I too am waiting for a better alternative to the LCD/Plasma domimation. While Kuros are good sets for sure, I will not worship one like many here seem to.

SED is an unknown at the moment.

When all of these techs come to some form of marketable maturity, I will be ready to replace at least one of my sets. I hope there are some better alternatives at that time.
From the first time I read about SED I knew it was the one tech that would end the current techs today.

Yes hype seems to rule the day here on the AVS but theres promise with SED. SD has to be better on this tech its a CRT. Will it have issues? Yes. But I looked for some of the articles I read a few years ago and can't find them explaining how it works. Thanks Art^^^ for explaining.

But for those who saw them at the 2006 CES show came home and were calling there stockbroker to buy stock. Theres no plasma or LCD that can compete.

If it doesn't come about the consumer is the big loser.

SD has to be better on this tech its a CRT.


Not necessarily. While CRT and SED are similar in their method of lighting phosphors with electrons SED is still a fixed pixel device and would need an internal scaler unless you like watching a tiny 720x480 image on the screen. Unlike current flat-panel technologies, however, SED can draw the screen using a line-by-line scan method which means that it can display interlaced material natively.

Applied Nanotech has waved it's right to appeal the ruling, but it may be too late for Canon to proceed on introducing SED product.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/02/canon-cleared-to-resume-work-on-sed-tv-now-that-the-world-doesn/

Key excerpt: (From the horse's mouth.)

"it may actually be too late for Canon to even salvage the win, with president Tsuneji Uchida noting that "at times like this, new display products are not introduced much because people would laugh at them.""

Probably a Pioneer double agent. :D

People poke fun at SED since it has been vaporware for the past couple of years but if someone were to actually come out and announce production models nobody would be laughing at it.

i'm not poking fun at it - I just don't see what the huge advantage is over plasma. I'm waiting for OLED.

i'm not poking fun at it - I just don't see what the huge advantage is over plasma. I'm waiting for OLED.

If it has direct view crt quality in a flat panel display with large screen sizes then it should blow all other formats out of the water. That being said, the best picture quality alone doesn't determine winning, for example Laserdisc was the champ in picture quality for a long time among consumer video playback devices in North America, but it was a huge bomb.
The current technologies certainly aren't a worthy sucessor to CRT as of yet, but hopefull OLED or SED should give us at least CRT quality if not better.

If it has direct view crt quality in a flat panel display with large screen sizes then it should blow all other formats out of the water.

But folks forget that even CRTs can have phosphor lag. OLED is the wave of the future, baby. :)

Reality Check:

Canon's President recently said that if they were to try and introduce such a product, in times like these, they would be laughed at.

That sure sounds like they have no plans to start marketing SED. Read it for yourselves.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/02/canon-cleared-to-resume-work-on-sed-tv-now-that-the-world-doesn/


Excerpted:

"Canon recently declared victory after winning a lawsuit (http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/08/06/canon-wins-sed-lawsuit-can-produce-sed-displays-again/) against Applied Nanotech that was previously holding it back from making progress, and now Applied Nanotech has waved the final white flag by giving up its right to appeal. Comically enough, it may actually be too late for Canon to even salvage the win, with president Tsuneji Uchida noting that "at times like this, new display products are not introduced much because people would laugh at them." Shh... nobody tell him the world's been laughing at SED (http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/25/sed-televisions-delayed-again-possibly-forever/) for years."

People poke fun at SED since it has been vaporware for the past couple of years but if someone were to actually come out and announce production models nobody would be laughing at it.Well if the production model was 50" in size and cost $20,000 there probably wouldn't be much gloating either. I understand that some people like the idea of SED since it has some similarities to CRT technology but unlike OLED there has never been any evidence that SED can be affordably mass produced in any size.

And how long will it take for a product to come out? SED was BIG news years ago but plasma and LCD have improved quite a bit and keep improving. Could it be too little too late? And don't forget that SED was supposed to be expensive. I'm just not seeing this happening anytime soon.

And how long will it take for a product to come out? SED was BIG news years ago but plasma and LCD have improved quite a bit and keep improving. Could it be too little too late? And don't forget that SED was supposed to be expensive. I'm just not seeing this happening anytime soon.

I give it at least 5 years before it becomes competitive with at least a 60" plasma or LCD. A $20K 60" SED ain't going to fly in 2010 or 2011.

Here's a quote about one of Samsung's own in reference to a possible 50" OLED set to be shown at CES(and also noted that if they were to release a model today it would likely cost 10 times the price of a comparable plasma/LCD):

"Kim then shifts into sales-mode by pointing out that Samsung's more power-efficient 240Hz LCDs and Plasmas with highly-reflective black panels and LED edge-lighting are quickly cutting into any advantage offered by OLEDs -- including thinness if you factor in the additional electronics you'd have to slap onto the back of those 3-mm thick OLED panels to create a TV."

Having said that, plasma and LCD are improving despite what some believe. People were amazed with SED when it first came out mainly because of the black levels which (at least with the Pioneers) is becoming a non-issue. Once plasmas get brighter (and reduce the ABL) and LCDs can deliver deep blacks on average scenes (LED models are getting there), then contrast will become a non-issue. And IMO by the time a reasonable sized SED or OLED TV comes to the marked that plasma/LCD will all ready be there, be significantly cheaper, and come in larger sizes.

Everyone gets so hyped up over all the new technology coming out but the advantages of new technology like OLED and SED gets smaller and smaller as plasma/LCD keep improving and getting cheaper. Let me know about this when we are getting close to getting at minimum a 60" screen for no more than $7k MSRP. I'm just not one of those guys that wants to bash todays technology for new technology may not be readily available for another 5 years. I don't know about you guys buy I'm not getting any younger. :)

I was invited to the premier showing of SED panels at the January 2006 CES Las Vegas show. Toshiba had a very impressive demonstration in a private totally dark room and the panels looked excellent. Nice black levels and fine detail. The source material demonstrated very vibrant deeply saturated colors.

This year we'll see several new back lit LCD panels with very powerful cell processors that I am interested in seeing. No SED that I know of, but hopefully sometime in 2010.

-Robert

Once plasmas get brighter (and reduce the ABL) and LCDs can deliver deep blacks on average scenes (LED models are getting there), then contrast will become a non-issue. And IMO by the time a reasonable sized SED or OLED TV comes to the marked that plasma/LCD will all ready be there, be significantly cheaper, and come in larger sizes.

Everyone gets so hyped up over all the new technology coming out but the advantages of new technology like OLED and SED gets smaller and smaller as plasma/LCD keep improving and getting cheaper. Let me know about this when we are getting close to getting at minimum a 60" screen for no more than $7k MSRP.

I totally agree.

By the time a new technology comes out, we'll still have to wait a couple more years for the price to come down to today's current pricing.
Ideally, I'd like to buy a new 60" next year. But this will depend on the brand/model that has the performance, picture, and ability to be calibrated as well or better than a current Kuro Elite, for under $4K. Hopefully this will be realistic.

Apparently Canon is working on a new production process that will reduce costs drastically. Now may still be a bad time to introduce them however.

"Tsuneji Uchida, Canon's president, told the FT: "In regards to SED, we have a new production process we're working on which is cost competitive with liquid crystal displays." Canon sees displays as a natural complement to its existing business of cameras, printers and copiers."

From ft.com (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/577ed3f0-c011-11dd-9222-0000779fd18c.html)

I totally agree.

By the time a new technology comes out, we'll still have to wait a couple more years for the price to come down to today's current pricing.
Ideally, I'd like to buy a new 60" next year. But this will depend on the brand/model that has the performance, picture, and ability to be calibrated as well or better than a current Kuro Elite, for under $4K. Hopefully this will be realistic.

Think of it this way, there are a dozen or so Olympic Track Runners running a 10,000 meter race and in the 1/2 portion of the race enters a new racer named SED that runs the same pace and is the same or seems similar as the other runners. Will he/she succeed?? I doubt it. Odds a new SED could compete against an already established producing video tech is dubious at best. The breakthrough would have to be very big.

Reality Check:

When Toshiba withdrew from the SED partnership with Canon, the plans to build a SED production plant were also cancelled, and Canon stated that they still had not developed manufacturing technology that would allow them to mass produce SED panels in a cost efficient manner.

Until they overcome those obstacles, Canon will not be in position to mass market any SED panels.

All Canon has currently is the same small proof of concept facility that they had when they shut the whole thing down.

Until they build a real production plant, their is no need for us to start salivating at each sound of Pavlov SED's bell.:)

I doubt it. Odds a new SED could compete against an already established producing video tech is dubious at best. The breakthrough would have to be very big.

Not necessarily. If the business value is there, manufacturers will quickly migrate to it.

So far though, the opposite appears to be true.

Well if the production model was 50" in size and cost $20,000 there probably wouldn't be much gloating either. I understand that some people like the idea of SED since it has some similarities to CRT technology but unlike OLED there has never been any evidence that SED can be affordably mass produced in any size.

Exactly.

And no one has ever shown conclusively that they have solved the emitter erosion problem, or uneven phosphor wear, or any other problems or concerns connected to the technology.

It won't be free of problems. Nothing ever is. If it were as good as the claims, it would be great. But it seems nothing is ever as good as the claims.

Exactly.

And no one has ever shown conclusively that they have solved the emitter erosion problem, or uneven phosphor wear, or any other problems or concerns connected to the technology. Sounds like you are talking about a PDP. I think that all techs including plasma that use some kind of material to emit light like phosphors or even OLED will be suspect in my mind for just this reason.

Say what you want about LCD, but there is no uneven wear or burn in on color filters.

But folks forget that even CRTs can have phosphor lag. OLED is the wave of the future, baby. :)

Not VISABLE with SIMPTE C Phosphors on CRTs.

Say what you want about LCD, but there is no uneven wear or burn in on color filters.

That is quite true until you bring up LED bulbs (which it seems all LCD makers are moving to in the future) LED bulbs are just as suseptable to uneven wear as a Plasma (moreso with current LED halflife ratings) and they require a break-in period as well, and is the reason why I will never buy an LED LCD, why destroy several of LCD's advantages just to get a slightly better picture?

Led bulbs will age at a slightly different rate on their own, but since most if not all LCD TVs using these bulbs will probably have a type of local dimming tech in them, that will only make the problem worse.

Led bulbs will age at a slightly different rate on their own, but since most if not all LCD TVs using these bulbs will probably have a type of local dimming tech in them, that will only make the problem worse.

Is the aging rate of LEDs worse than the fluorescent lamps currently used in most LCD displays? These fluorescent lamps rely on phosphors similar to those used in plasma displays.

Is the aging rate of LEDs worse than the fluorescent lamps currently used in most LCD displays? These fluorescent lamps rely on phosphors similar to those used in plasma displays.

I believe the half life of these LED bulbs are 50k hours, and I believe someone stated a 76% drop-off in luminance in that period..... could be wrong on that number, the problem isn't that they have a shorter lifespan than a CCFL bulb, it is the local dim tech that just adds to the problem of these bulbs having shorter lifespans than most plasma displays. (and the fact that they age far more rapidly in the first 150 hours which means that a break in is required, which is as simple as turning off the local dim during that time, which I am sure that very few owners of these LED sets are doing) This local dim tech is the problem as some bulbs will age more than the others leading to uneven wear in a few years time. (I expect some 81 series owners to start commenting on uneven wear withing the next couple of years) CCFL bulbs are always on so they don't have the same uneven wear issues as the LED bulbs.

I have no clue about Sony's RGB LEDs lifespan and rate of luminance drop off so I can't really comment on them, but to be safe I would say that they are probably slightly worse off than your average plasma in this regard. (I would bet that each color probably ages at a different rate if they use phosphors like the current Sammy LED bulbs do)

I believe the half life of these LED bulbs are 50k hours, and I believe someone stated a 76% drop-off in luminance in that period..... could be wrong on that number... I don't know where I seen this but I was surprised that it said that the luminance would drop to 70% at 50K hours. That does not seem so bad. Really 50K hours equates to 5.7 years with 24 hour days, with an average 8 hour day 16 years? I wont worry about that.

While 70% at 50K hours is good, it was not stated what half life would be, my feeling is that the luminance drop off is not strictly a linear function and 50% may be reached very quickly after that.

I have no clue about Sony's RGB LEDs lifespan and rate of luminance drop off so I can't really comment on them, but to be safe I would say that they are probably slightly worse off than your average plasma in this regard. (I would bet that each color probably ages at a different rate if they use phosphors like the current Sammy LED bulbs do) I think the XBR8 uses a LED to excite a RGB phosphor of some kind. If I am wrong someone can correct me on that. The Samsung uses a white light LED or some kind of Phosphor excitation system I thought.

I don't like the idea of using some kind of system like phosphor excited by LEDs, seems to much the reason I didn't buy a plasma, uneven aging o phosphors.

Sharp is using discrete Red, Green and Blue LEDs as I understand, I think this is better.

Not VISABLE with SIMPTE C Phosphors on CRTs.

They are visible. When very high contrast images are moving on my PC monitor, for example a white cursor on a black background, you can easily see a dim gray trail behind it. They aren't quite as obvious as the yellow flashes you can see on a plasma but they are there.

Say what you want about LCD, but there is no uneven wear or burn in on color filters.

Yes there is (http://hdguru.com/?p=151).

Yes there is (http://hdguru.com/?p=151).There is a difference between temporary image retention and permanent burn in and Gary Merson did not explain that well in his article. Also I would point out that Gary Merson listed "No Burn-in" as an advantage for LCD just a few days ago (http://hdguru.com/hdtv-christmas-buyers-guide-and-recommended-models-part-ii/323/).

Yes there is (http://hdguru.com/?p=151).Kind of thin on the info in that article.

The pixel itself needs a charge to "twist" the LC in the cell to show an affect. The charge comes from the buildup of charge in adjacent pixels with large differing degrees of charge and/or cells that are left with a constant charge for a long time. When turned off and left the charges are dissipated and the IR is gone.

Again a phosphor is something that ages with it's exposure to UV. A color filter may degrade with time, but will not suffer from Burn In like a phosphor.

I am not good at expaining these things, but there it is.

OLED uses a current passed through a material that will emit a light and like a phosphor will age according to use.

There is a difference between temporary image retention and permanent burn in and Gary Merson did not explain that well in his article. Also I would point out that Gary Merson listed "No Burn-in" as an advantage for LCD just a few days ago (http://hdguru.com/hdtv-christmas-buyers-guide-and-recommended-models-part-ii/323/).

Also LCD TVs can burn in (http://www.hdtvinfo.eu/news/hdtv-articles/als-lcd-tvs-can-burn-in.html)

They are visible. When very high contrast images are moving on my PC monitor, for example a white cursor on a black background, you can easily see a dim gray trail behind it. They aren't quite as obvious as the yellow flashes you can see on a plasma but they are there.



.

Yeah, but your computer monitor uses P22 phosphors, not SMPTE C phosphors. Also, that's phenemenon you may see 1/100th of 1 percent of the time vs up to like 20% of the time on Plasmas.

Also, that's phenemenon you may see 1/100th of 1 percent of the time vs up to like 20% of the time on Plasmas.

Do you have FACTS to back up this theory?

Yeah, but your computer monitor uses P22 phosphors, not SMPTE C phosphors. Also, that's phenemenon you may see 1/100th of 1 percent of the time vs up to like 20% of the time on Plasmas.

I can see the same dim trails on my XBR CRT as well so, no, it isn't because of the phosphor type.

Also LCD TVs can burn in (http://www.hdtvinfo.eu/news/hdtv-articles/als-lcd-tvs-can-burn-in.html)Same article that Artvandelae linked to. This just shows that LCD can have IR, not burn in. Burn in is permanent, IR is something that can be gotten rid of. Again no burn in on color filters. I have been to Bic Camera Stores in Japan and have seen this first hand. Change the static image on the screen for awhile to something else and it is gone, even on the sets that show the same image for days on end.

I can see the same dim trails on my XBR CRT as well so, no, it isn't because of the phosphor type.

I have never seen them on any of my Trinitron CRTs, NOT EVEN WITH THE TEST DISC. I tried very hard to look for them on one old HP CRT computer monitor and I eventually did, but only when moving the mouse really fast on a black background. The difference is that I had to work really hard to find them wereas with the plasma they found me, I didn't have to go looking.

Canon is clear to launch a new type of TV after winning a patent lawsuit about SED technology that has delayed its progress for more than 3 years.

http://digg.com/tech_news/Canon_can_legally_produce_SED_TVs_now/p.jpg

SED TVs can produce the wide viewing angle and deep colours of a traditional CRT, but are as thin as a LCD, or Plasma display.

Oh so glorious!! I wait for the day. We've been through so many trials and tribulations:( maybe the time has finally arrived to liberate us from the dark ages of display technology we're currently in.

. People were amazed with SED when it first came out mainly because of the black levels which (at least with the Pioneers) is becoming a non-issue

SED is vastly superior to Pioneer plasma is every single area of display technology. There isn't one area of display techology where plasma surpasses SED. Also, were talking SED from 2006. We don't know what kind new version of this technology will be available.

Also, there is no such thing as dirty whites with SED. SED is brighter than plasma as well. The technology is just vastly superior to plasma, which still looks digital.

SED is vastly superior to Pioneer plasma is every single area of display technology. There isn't one area of display techology where plasma surpasses SED. How about display size, cost, production and availability?

How about display size, cost, production and availability?

My statement was about display technology more so than the economy of the technology.

SED is vastly more flexible than the obsolete PDP. SED can be implemented in cell phones as well as Stadium size displays.

SED is vastly more flexible than the obsolete PDP. SED can be implemented in cell phones as well as Stadium size displays.
that's great, but it doesn't matter if it can't be made widely available at prices competitive with today's technology.

[QUOTE=Auditor55;15287915] There isn't one area of display techology where plasma surpasses SED.

QUOTE]

Sure there is, the ability to produce a screen size in the 50" and 60" category that's affordable.

When SED gets there, then I'll be interested. :D

SED is vastly superior to Pioneer plasma is every single area of display technology. There isn't one area of display techology where plasma surpasses SED. Also, were talking SED from 2006. We don't know what kind new version of this technology will be available.

Also, there is no such thing as dirty whites with SED. SED is brighter than plasma as well. The technology is just vastly superior to plasma, which still looks digital.

Does anyone have the feeling of fighting over spilt milk? Or he mysterious feelin of deja vu? O_o

Reality Check:

No matter what that certain hopped up SED Head keeps claiming, Pioneer has no plans to introduce SED now.

Straight from the Horse's Mouth:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/02/canon-cleared-to-resume-work-on-sed-tv-now-that-the-world-doesn/

Excerpt from the 12/2/2008 article.

"Comically enough, it may actually be too late for Canon to even salvage the win, with president Tsuneji Uchida noting that "at times like this, new display products are not introduced much because people would laugh at them." Shh... nobody tell him the world's been laughing at SED (http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/25/sed-televisions-delayed-again-possibly-forever/) for years."

Since the President of Canon said that on 12/2/2009, it is clear that he has no intention of being laughed at, so folks, feel free to just keep on laughing at our resident hopped up SED head.

SED is vastly superior to Pioneer plasma is every single area of display technology. There isn't one area of display techology where plasma surpasses SED. Also, were talking SED from 2006. We don't know what kind new version of this technology will be available.

Also, there is no such thing as dirty whites with SED. SED is brighter than plasma as well. The technology is just vastly superior to plasma, which still looks digital.

Sheet, it's the SED Village Idiot again!:D Not so fast Audi my boy. Not a good time to be counting those SED stock options. You might as well be using that paper to twist up your doobies. One good way to prove yourself though, just bring over one of those SED's and let's put it to a display shootout...oh, I forgot...they only exist in your mind.

Fantasies and vaporware are always vastly superior to mundane reality. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Auditor55;15287915]Also, there is no such thing as dirty whites with SED.QUOTE]

Care to explain that statement?