|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.