Official SED, Info, Discussion, Etc Thread!!! - Page 4 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
First ... 2  3  4 5  6  ... Last
OLED Technology and Flat Panels General > Official SED, Info, Discussion, Etc Thread!!!
dusty144's Avatar dusty144 01:07 PM 01-26-2005
Quote:
Originally posted by aud19
About the only advantage other than size that plasma has over a quality CRT set is viewing angle....
CRT's have many other strikes against them. I'm only going to address the ones that will probably apply to SED's.

- Many contain lead to sheild the system.
- Need substantially thicker glass for the vaccum, hence weight.
- Color blooming.
- Suseptible to magnetic effects.
- Burn in is same as plasma.

If SED's are not going to challenge at the smaller sizes then what is the point of all this. Just a replacement for plasma. Pointless.

There is space for exactly one more technology to be dominant in the display market. One that can do small and large sizes economically and qualitatively, a la OLED's. If SED can't do that it stands even less of a chance than I thought.
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
cajieboy's Avatar cajieboy 01:56 PM 01-26-2005
Quote:
Originally posted by aud19
OK no offense cajie but how old is your TV and is it set up properly?

About the only advantage other than size that plasma has over a quality CRT set is viewing angle....

Quality CRT's have better colour, actual blacks for way better shadow detail and dark "textures" etc. Why do you think everyone's so excited about SED? It's because it offers the traditionally better picture we're accustomed to in the thin form factor of plasma/LCD that everyone drools over.
Rather than hijack this thread w/a CRT vs. Plasma rant, why not go start a brand new thread? I'm sure you'll get plenty of replies on the subject. After all, most Plasma TV owners previously owned CRT TV's. BTW, w/the exception of a slight color impurity on the upper left edge of the screen, I get great PQ in SD & HD both, but that's another story.

Now, back to day dreaming about futuristic SED taking over the flat panel display market...:D
Artwood's Avatar Artwood 02:16 PM 01-26-2005
I think Toshiba will always price their products 1 cent more than Sony's Qualia and claim technical superiority-Sony is the target--if Sony ever ceased Qualia production then Toshiba would lower their prices--it's a good strategy--always better to start out too high priced than too low priced--expect alot of crossover advertising with Canon digital camcorders, printers, and cameras to solidify the brand cachet.
rogo's Avatar rogo 02:17 PM 01-26-2005
"
CRT's have many other strikes against them"

CRTs never offer:

* Perfect focus
* Perfect geometry
* Perfect convergence

Yet all fixed-pixel displays that aren't defective always do all three.
wojtek's Avatar wojtek 02:44 PM 01-26-2005
Quote:
Originally posted by dusty144
CRT's have many other strikes against them. I'm only going to address the ones that will probably apply to SED's.

- Burn in is same as plasma.

Don't know about SEDs, but Direct View CRTs most emphatically do not burn-in as easily as plasmas. Even those plasmas with 60K half-life.

But that's beside the point - burn-in propensity/half-life of SEDs are not known yet.

Hopefully they will not be an unwelcome surprise.
davegust's Avatar davegust 03:04 PM 01-26-2005
Quote:
Originally posted by dusty144
- Many contain lead to sheild the system.
- Need substantially thicker glass for the vaccum, hence weight.
- Color blooming.
- Suseptible to magnetic effects.
- Burn in is same as plasma.

If SED's are not going to challenge at the smaller sizes then what is the point of all this. Just a replacement for plasma. Pointless.

There is space for exactly one more technology to be dominant in the display market. One that can do small and large sizes economically and qualitatively, a la OLED's. If SED can't do that it stands even less of a chance than I thought.
"Just a replacement for plasma" seems to be a good start. From a consumer standpoint, FED has better black levels (and hence contrast), better color accuracy, and lower power consumption. From a manufactuing standpoint, there is the potential for lower costs (if you believe Canon's white papers). It's hardly "pointless".

As for your "strikes":

Lead - PDPs also contain lead, as do most semiconductor products

Weight - Is this conjecture, or do you have a source. I'd be surprised if they didn't have some sort of internal structure to support the glass - a potential issue though.

Blooming - Blooming is unique to the difficulty in directing a beam in a CRT - this is not likely to be a problem for FED/SED - the minimal gap between emitter and phosphors will eliminate focus/blooming issues

Burn-In - How is this a "strike" if it also applies to PDP?


There's no reason FED won't scale down to smaller sizes - in fact that's the market Candescent was targeting - low power screens for laptops. Toshiba (thankfully) sees an opportunity in large screens.

OLED may have a bright future, although there are some remaining technical issues preventing its adoption for HDTV (short lifetime due to stability of the organic components, low yields on large panels). When someone announces production has started on a large, flat panel OLED, I'll be impressed.
dusty144's Avatar dusty144 03:20 PM 01-26-2005
Quote:
Originally posted by rogo
"
CRT's have many other strikes against them"

CRTs never offer:

* Perfect focus
* Perfect geometry
* Perfect convergence

Yet all fixed-pixel displays that aren't defective always do all three.
We were looking at CRT weaknesses that might translate to SED's.

I'm assuming SED will have these covered.
navychop's Avatar navychop 04:38 PM 01-26-2005
That popping sound you just heard was my bubble bursting.

After reading some of the above posts, and doing a bit more research, I have come to realize that as much as I am thrilled with the potential of SED, it ain't coming in cheap or soon.

This article is typical of others I've read. I now must admit that they will be late (at least six months later than that article mentioned), very expensive for the first few years, and in short supply for the first 2 or 3 years. They hope to become cost competitive by decade's end. Nice goal. That MIGHT make them a contender for the TV after the next TV I buy. :( By then, other technologies will have progressed and dropped in price. It's possible SEDs will never be a cost competitive solution, but may linger as a videophile's option. By decade's end, it'll be obvious if OLEDs can be scaled up and made to last several years- they'll certainly be cheap (relatively). Even without OLED competition, other technologies may improve so much by then there won't be much difference to most people.

Maybe OLED and SED will both fail to reach the mass market, and these DLP and LCD RPTVs may be around far longer than we expect.

I think I'll mark my calendar with this thread for Feb 2006. Maybe SEDs will be out by then, and I might revive this thread and we'll see what SEDs and PDPs cost at that time. Only a year or so to wait, to see who's crystal ball needs windex.
R11's Avatar R11 06:45 PM 01-26-2005
Navy, thanks for that article link. I think it's a very interesting piece and makes me all the more positive about their chances of success with the venture. They said their hope was to be "profitable" by decades end so it does look like they intend to take an initial hit to ensure long-term success. It seems they have spent much time and effort to forecast that scenario out, including mid stream alterations to compensate for the dropping prices of the competition.

I thought the mention of possible "4) Group expansion through technology licensing" was also telling...

Back to an earlier contention, I do remember a quote from one of the Toshiba execs saying that their intention was to be price competitive with LCD/PDP (several months before they made the infamous "Ferrari" statement). Looking back it now seems obvious that the original statement was taken out of context and simply left out the part of it not being until their production was fully ramped up several years out.

ron
navychop's Avatar navychop 07:30 PM 01-26-2005
Thank you for your comment. I just wonder if 2010 will be "in time." Display technologies are moving so fast. They do seem confident that it will work so well they will pull in licensing fees. I did like the last chart, which showed there are still large price reductions in store for the next couple of years for LCDs.
rogo's Avatar rogo 08:10 PM 01-26-2005
I don't think the article makes the point about them taking an early hit at all. It's just the opposite. They talk about how they've thoughts of ways to get cost competitive, but will not be initially. It is a delusion that people think somehow Toshiba is going to benevolently introduce their incredibly tiny quantities of Ferrari TVs at a discount. They are going to cost more than plasmas and probably more than LCDs at introduction. (I'm assuming you'll be able to buy the ~52-inch Sharp by then and perhaps 1-2 other large LCDs.)
navychop's Avatar navychop 09:22 PM 01-26-2005
And it looks like the 60"-70+" field will remain the property of RPTVs for years to come.
cajieboy's Avatar cajieboy 09:55 PM 01-26-2005
Quote:
Originally posted by navychop
And it looks like the 60"-70+" field will remain the property of RPTVs for years to come.
Maybe in the 70+" screens, but Plasma does extremely well in the 60-65" range. Check out the Panny 65"er and the Fujitsu P63 (although on the pricey side). Newer models in this range will be arriving soon, and we'll see then in regards to price & PQ improvements.
Secant's Avatar Secant 11:30 PM 01-26-2005
http://neasia.nikkeibp.com.hk/mag_co...05-CS-fig1.jpg

The paragraph in the chart above states that in 2010, SED units (40"+) will hit 3 million units...resulting in $200 Billion Yen "profits". If I understand this statement correctly, then that results in a $650 USD profit/unit for Toshiba/Canon only, or all the distributors, etc? If only the manufacturer profit, then add in panel cost, distribution, R+D expenditures, each local store's $1,000/unit profit margin (LOL), etc, etc, etc....Youch...

I agree that SED technology is super exciting, but something tells me it isn't going to come cheap...even in 2010. I'm a huge CRT fan...but must say I was more excited by the graph below showing LCD/PDP 40-42 inch TVs costing less than $2,000 on average in 2010...that is an amazing price drop!

http://neasia.nikkeibp.com.hk/mag_co...05-CS-fig4.jpg

My question is how will a new technology like SED compete at those prices in 2010...especially if it isn't as technologically superior as we are lead to believe? Will the "WoW-Factor" be large enough to justify a lofty price, versus a proven and potentially much less costly technology such as LCD or PDP?
rogo's Avatar rogo 11:58 PM 01-26-2005
The article says the average panel is going to cost $650, not that the average profit per panel is going to be $650.

That said, I can't believe the average price for an LCD or PDP will be anywhere near as high as that graph forecasts.
cajieboy's Avatar cajieboy 12:53 AM 01-27-2005
"Cheaper" may not end up being "better". What is supposed to make these SED panels so great? This SED Tech is untested, not mfg'ered, over promised, etc...Some folks talk as if they're ready freddy to jump on the first SED they see, but in the same breath say Plasma don't cut the PQ mustard. Something is not right w/this picture, for sure.
dusty144's Avatar dusty144 08:03 AM 01-27-2005
Quote:
Originally posted by Secant
[url]I agree that SED technology is super exciting, but something tells me it isn't going to come cheap...even in 2010. I'm a huge CRT fan...but must say I was more excited by the graph below showing LCD/PDP 40-42 inch TVs costing less than $2,000 on average in 2010...that is an amazing price drop!
I assume you were being sarcastic.

Most analyst projections show PDP's at sub $1000 by the then, probably in the EDTV 42", but is 1080p 50" shows up maybe even in the HD 42". Definitely a commodity item.

Remember too that those price projections were for manufactured cost not retail cost.
optivity's Avatar optivity 08:08 AM 01-27-2005
Quote:
Originally posted by cajieboy
"Cheaper" may not end up being "better". What is supposed to make these SED panels so great? This SED Tech is untested, not mfg'ered, over promised, etc...Some folks talk as if they're ready freddy to jump on the first SED they see, but in the same breath say Plasma don't cut the PQ mustard. Something is not right w/this picture, for sure.
So which is better... an 8th generation 50" HD-PDP for $5500 or a 1st generation 50" SED panel for $10K?:confused:
davegust's Avatar davegust 09:33 AM 01-27-2005
Quote:
Originally posted by cajieboy
What is supposed to make these SED panels so great? This SED Tech is untested, not mfg'ered, over promised, etc...Some folks talk as if they're ready freddy to jump on the first SED they see, but in the same breath say Plasma don't cut the PQ mustard. Something is not right w/this picture, for sure.
They have been manufactured (in small quantities, for testing) by Canon over the last three years, and have recently been demonstrated to the public in HD resolutions. Third party observers have testified that the picture quality was "amazing" and that it was everything that has been promised. It was a standout of the CES show this month, even though it was not heavily promoted.

With plasma, a gas bubble is energized with an electrode to a plasma state, just like a fluorescent tube. The plasma gives off electrons to energize the phosphors. With FED, an emitter (cathode) is heated, just like in CRTs and light bulbs, to generate a stream of electrons that energize the phosphors. The cathode emission of electrons is much easier to control than the plasma emission. That's why FEDs have superior black levels and color - they can control the light better. That's also why fluorescent tubes cannot be dimmed to very low light levels.

FED may seem over promised, but from a PQ standpoint it's just the old tried and true CRT formula minus the steering coils. The problems have been in miniaturizing the cathodes and doing so in a cost effective and reliable way.

I am eager to see an in-depth independent review of one of these units. We probably won't see that until early next year.
R11's Avatar R11 09:47 AM 01-27-2005
Quote:
Originally posted by rogo
I don't think the article makes the point about them taking an early hit at all. It's just the opposite. They talk about how they've thoughts of ways to get cost competitive, but will not be initially. It is a delusion that people think somehow Toshiba is going to benevolently introduce their incredibly tiny quantities of Ferrari TVs at a discount. They are going to cost more than plasmas and probably more than LCDs at introduction. (I'm assuming you'll be able to buy the ~52-inch Sharp by then and perhaps 1-2 other large LCDs.)
Rogo you misunderstood my point completely. I did not mean that they would not price the initial production dribbles highly. What I did mean was that they are prepared to lose money (probably lots of it) for a number of years until they can obtain cost efficiency. I think we can all agree that planning on the venture not being profitable until 2010 could be considered taking a pretty big hit :). But the point is that that's built into their model. They seem to have at least a decent grasp on the realities of the situation and still feel that they have a good enough chance for success to "roll the bones" and take the risk. That would seem to indicate that they feel pretty confident in the tech and their new processes to make a go of it. We shall see...

ron
navychop's Avatar navychop 10:00 AM 01-27-2005
davegust:

Nice explanation. I'm stealing it, in case I see that question in the future. :D
optivity's Avatar optivity 10:07 AM 01-27-2005
Quote:
Originally posted by R11
Rogo you misunderstood my point completely. I did not mean that they would not price the initial production dribbles highly. What I did mean was that they are prepared to lose money (probably lots of it) for a number of years until they can obtain cost efficiency. I think we can all agree that planning on the venture not being profitable until 2010 could be considered taking a pretty big hit :). But the point is that that's built into their model. They seem to have at least a decent grasp on the realities of the situation and still feel that they have a good enough chance for success to "roll the bones" and take the risk. That would seem to indicate that they feel pretty confident in the tech and their new processes to make a go of it. We shall see...

ron
But just how competitive will SED prices be in 2006 - 2007? A 50" HD-PDP will probably retail at 'BJ's Wholsale Club' for about $3K during this time, SED will most likely remain out of reach for middle income buyers until 2010.
thomopolis's Avatar thomopolis 10:26 AM 01-27-2005
There are two types of models that this can follow;

1 - EV1. GM spent about $1.5 Billion developing this car. It had it's pluses, never needing gas, obviously environmentally friendly, gave them a lot of press. But it had it's minuses, could only go maximum 100 miles on a charge, and it looked like it arrived out of a hoakey Buck Rodgers film - intentionally so only true enthusiasts would buy it.

It was priced quite a bit above the average car of it's size and type (two seater), but well below what it's price point should have been to make a profit ($28K vs. $100K). GM was willing to take a bath on the unit cost as long as demand started to pick up enough to show they would eventually make back their money and profit. Never happened, so they cancelled the whole thing.

2. - Prius/Insight - Hybrids were not quite as environmentally friendly as an electric, but fixed the issue of distance. Both still looked a bit odd so only true believers in new tech would buy them initially.

They were priced above average for a car of their size and type (enough that the savings on gas was negated), and again well below what a unit price should have been ($23/$28K vs ~$75K). Neither Toyota or Honda knew if the US consumer would embrace them. They did and today the Hybrid Civic, Accord, Prius, and Toyota Insight are all sold at a profit.

What were the main differences between the two?
-The hybrids didn't ask the consumer to compromise as much


So if SED doesn't have any negatives (or very few) vs. PDP and LCD, and some positives, they can sell at a slightly higher price point initially. If however they have life problems, burn-in problems, cost twice as much then they will die on the vine even with their high contrast ratio and 1080P.
dusty144's Avatar dusty144 10:28 AM 01-27-2005
Quote:
Originally posted by davegust
The plasma gives off electrons to energize the phosphors. With FED, an emitter (cathode) is heated, just like in CRTs and light bulbs, to generate a stream of electrons that energize the phosphors. The cathode emission of electrons is much easier to control than the plasma emission. That's why FEDs have superior black levels and color - they can control the light better. That's also why fluorescent tubes cannot be dimmed to very low light levels.
Couple of nits. Plasma actually uses UV light to generate visible light, not electrons. Also SED's use a cold Cathode and so don't have to be heated. Its not even a cathode gun but rather an "electron cascade/shower" which is then accelarated towards the phosphors. Control is through voltage.

Actually the poorer black levels in Plasma is due to the sustain discharge as it is easier to 'strike' the plasma with the sustain in operation.
davegust's Avatar davegust 11:57 AM 01-27-2005
Thanks for the correction.
R11's Avatar R11 12:59 PM 01-27-2005
Quote:
But just how competitive will SED prices be in 2006 - 2007? A 50" HD-PDP will probably retail at 'BJ's Wholsale Club' for about $3K during this time, SED will most likely remain out of reach for middle income buyers until 2010.
I'd say this is probably going to be true. But they won't have many to sell initially anyway until they ramp up. Looks like it's going to be a balancing act for them price-wise. Lets hope the venture turns out to be more Prius-like than EV1...

ron
rogo's Avatar rogo 04:32 PM 01-27-2005
Ron, thanks for clarifying your point above. And I'm fine with a Prius outcome. I, in fact, an buying a hybrid vehicle.
Artwood's Avatar Artwood 06:44 PM 01-27-2005
Which will come first--a Lincoln Continental Town Car hybrid or a 50-inch SED at Wal-Mart?
Trunorth's Avatar Trunorth 07:26 PM 01-27-2005
Hybrids especially the Prius are sold at a profit to the dealer but not to Toyota as the manufacturer. That's why Toyota is looking to have componentry built and the vehicle assembled in China. Better watch the PQ in the rear view mirror sorry Build Quality (BQ) hopefully it will be better than existing PQ in the Chinese PDP's.
optivity's Avatar optivity 08:01 PM 01-27-2005
Quote:
Originally posted by Trunorth
Hybrids especially the Prius are sold at a profit to the dealer but not to Toyota as the manufacturer. That's why Toyota is looking to have componentry built and the vehicle assembled in China. Better watch the PQ in the rear view mirror sorry Build Quality (BQ) hopefully it will be better than existing PQ in the Chinese PDP's.
In an effort to reduce costs Panasonic is having PDP's assembled in Mexico ... what about the build quality of these plasma screens from south of the border?
First ... 2  3  4 5  6  ... Last

Up
Mobile  Desktop