You seem to not understand those may be one and the same.
I take issue with the absolute manner in which you state hypothesis as fact. Fusion I would say is still decades away. If CLED is pursued as a display technology, it will arrive sooner than that. If it doesn't get pursued, obviously it won't; but those decisions will full well be made within the span prior to fusions appearance on the scene as anything more than a weapon.
Yes, and incidentally, I believe a viable fusion power plant won't be on planet earth this century. But today, fusion is more real than CLED.
I find it ironic that you claim my conclusion is in error, yet as your support, you cite only the unknowable. Again, I go back to the drama surrounding blu-ray diode production back in the day, and the thought that the discs themselves could not be yielded in a cost effective manner.
That's not relevant. I know you think it is, but it isn't. Once a blue laser diode was viable, BluRay was viable. There was Toshiba FUD about BluRay; not real issues. Sony is alone here and has disclosed nothing about this nor announced anything about even piloting a production facility. As they say, "you do the math".
The issue here is the LEDs themselves, and the control circuity, just as I stated. As nano-scale efforts and development into LEDs across several industries continues, I don't think pixel pitch or watt/lumens will be an issue that doesn't at some point solve itself so far as applicability in TVs goes.
The pixel pitch is entirely relevant as is the watt/lumens. Sorry, those are both real issues.
Now whether it will be relevant for display technology at x-given date is another matter. But for CLED the questions on achievability revolve only around the control circuitry and building the modules.
I see absolutely no issue at all with control circuitry. That could not be less trivial. On the other hand, assembly of the modules to a sub 1/10th pixel tolerance will be required, never mind module fabrication.
Unless you can put forth a theory based on some specific point as to why you feel such a module would prove irreconcilably difficult to create, I think you need to acknowledge that the limits of industry are not the limits at all - it again goes back to the economics.
There is no similar product short of giant video walls. If scaling x to y were easy, we'd have 70" OLED TVs since, after all, we have millions of AMOLED phones. Scaling is often impossible.
I definitely think that 27" OLEDs would have been easy enough to make for Sony - at that time it simply would have been a matter of the insanely high gross costs associated with terrible yields on those panel sizes.
Yields have killed hundreds of products you've never heard of.
But the technology was absolutely there to create them if expense were not a concern.
This is where our definitions differ. Because something exists, that doesn't make it a viable technology. It makes it a hypothetical technology. There's a guy who can make hydrogen directly from the sun via an artificial leaf. It works. Now, go buy one to fuel your hydrogen-powered car. What? You can't? Oh, right. It doesn't exist as a product. Nor does the car. Bummer.
As far as SED/FED, likewise I think if pushed the sets could have been commercialized. Certainly Sony, Toshiba, and Canon all thought so for several years of analysis.
And I said they were wrong for several years, based on my knowledge of the industry. See, I wasn't caught up in the hype, the incremental commitment, the belief that my corporate will would solve insoluble problems. In this case, my knowledge > theirs. If you want to build a camera lens, though, consult Canon and ignore me.
But the LCD industrial complex has simply proven to be such that other technologies can't find an economic window via which to warrant funding.
True in 2000. Arguably true now. The reasons behind OLED are allegedly economic, but really about ego and some hypothetical economic edge in a decade. But we all know no one really builds a new technology today to maybe come out with a cost edge in a decade.
That's assuming 1080p. 720p would allow for a reduction in panel size, even if pixel pitch were the constraining variable otherwise.[/quote]
A "state of the art" 720p display would be laughed out of the marketplace. In a major major way. And with the market going to 4K within 5 years, even 1080p might now cut it. Another problem for CLED commercialization.
Certainly I can tell you are not excited about CLED.
And, again, you are wrong. Perhaps you ought to re-read the thread from the beginning.
That's completely fine - but it does represent a technology that would offer incredible black levels, a super wide color gamut, and "brightness" to boot.
So can OLED, which has broken promises dating back to 2000 if not earlier. Literally.
Maybe in 2013, there'll be an OLED HDTV for sale. Maybe.
Of course, it'll be 1/4 the resolution of state-of-the-art LCDs and less than 1/2 the size. So it's already playing catch up. Oh, and it will cost 4x a comparable LCD. Basically, OLED is 5 years from catching LCD -- more or less. And it's been 5 years from catching LCD for more than a decade. In that regard, it's awfully like fusion, which has been 20 years away... for 50 years.