Yet another display...

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Joseph S. Powell, III, Sep 17, 2004.

  1. The SED (Surface Conduction Electron Emmitter Display) display, being
    developed by Cannon and Toshiba, is essentially a flat CRT (I actually had
    this idea when I was 10, but sadly lacked the technical expertise (not to
    mention 21st century miniturization technology) to develop it).

    This really looks promising, and would likely supplant plasma if the prices
    come down (which may be likely)...

    Check it out...

    http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/device/sed_display/
    Joseph S. Powell, III, Sep 17, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Ed T Guest

    Looks like it would probably have the same burn in issues as CRTs and Plasma
    though.


    "Joseph S. Powell, III" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The SED (Surface Conduction Electron Emmitter Display) display, being
    > developed by Cannon and Toshiba, is essentially a flat CRT (I actually had
    > this idea when I was 10, but sadly lacked the technical expertise (not to
    > mention 21st century miniturization technology) to develop it).
    >
    > This really looks promising, and would likely supplant plasma if the

    prices
    > come down (which may be likely)...
    >
    > Check it out...
    >
    > http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/device/sed_display/
    >
    >
    Ed T, Sep 18, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Abe Guest

    On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:22:39 -0500, "Joseph S. Powell, III"
    <> wrote:

    >The SED (Surface Conduction Electron Emmitter Display) display, being
    >developed by Cannon and Toshiba, is essentially a flat CRT (I actually had
    >this idea when I was 10, but sadly lacked the technical expertise (not to
    >mention 21st century miniturization technology) to develop it).
    >
    >This really looks promising, and would likely supplant plasma if the prices
    >come down (which may be likely)...
    >
    >Check it out...
    >
    >http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/device/sed_display/

    -------------------
    Neat!
    Abe, Sep 18, 2004
    #3
  4. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Badger Guest

    It will be interesting to see if they can get the pixel resolution as
    fine as they say.
    Clay
    "Abe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:22:39 -0500, "Joseph S. Powell, III"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >The SED (Surface Conduction Electron Emmitter Display) display,

    being
    > >developed by Cannon and Toshiba, is essentially a flat CRT (I

    actually had
    > >this idea when I was 10, but sadly lacked the technical expertise

    (not to
    > >mention 21st century miniturization technology) to develop it).
    > >
    > >This really looks promising, and would likely supplant plasma if

    the prices
    > >come down (which may be likely)...
    > >
    > >Check it out...
    > >
    > >http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/device/sed_display/

    > -------------------
    > Neat!
    >
    Badger, Sep 18, 2004
    #4
  5. "Ed T" <> wrote in message
    news:414b8c32$...
    > Looks like it would probably have the same burn in issues as CRTs and
    > Plasma
    > though.


    probably more in line with direct view CRT burn, which is lower than PDP or
    RP thanks to lower temps/intensities and more stable phosphors.
    Randy Sweeney, Sep 18, 2004
    #5
  6. "Randy Sweeney" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Ed T" <> wrote in message
    > news:414b8c32$...
    > > Looks like it would probably have the same burn in issues as CRTs and
    > > Plasma
    > > though.

    >
    > probably more in line with direct view CRT burn, which is lower than PDP

    or
    > RP thanks to lower temps/intensities and more stable phosphors.


    What is more stable about direct view phosphors vs RPTV and PDP phosphors?

    Leonard
    Leonard Caillouet, Sep 18, 2004
    #6
  7. Leonard Caillouet wrote:
    > "Randy Sweeney" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >>RP thanks to lower temps/intensities and more stable phosphors.

    >
    >
    > What is more stable about direct view phosphors vs RPTV and PDP phosphors?
    >


    If there is a difference, I would suspect that RP phosphors are more
    stable if only to deal with the higher energy per area.

    Matthew

    --
    Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
    You can't win
    You can't break even
    You can't get out of the game
    Matthew L. Martin, Sep 18, 2004
    #7
  8. "Matthew L. Martin" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Leonard Caillouet wrote:
    >> "Randy Sweeney" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>
    >>>RP thanks to lower temps/intensities and more stable phosphors.

    >>
    >>
    >> What is more stable about direct view phosphors vs RPTV and PDP
    >> phosphors?
    >>

    >
    > If there is a difference, I would suspect that RP phosphors are more
    > stable if only to deal with the higher energy per area.
    >
    > Matthew



    the statbility difference is between UV excited (pdp) and electron phosphors
    (rp/crt)

    yes, the increased burn on rp is because the are driven hard and hot
    Randy Sweeney, Sep 19, 2004
    #8
  9. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Neil Guest

    "Joseph S. Powell, III" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The SED (Surface Conduction Electron Emmitter Display) display, being
    > developed by Cannon and Toshiba, is essentially a flat CRT (I actually had
    > this idea when I was 10, but sadly lacked the technical expertise (not to
    > mention 21st century miniturization technology) to develop it).
    >
    > This really looks promising, and would likely supplant plasma if the
    > prices
    > come down (which may be likely)...
    >
    > Check it out...
    >
    > http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/device/sed_display/
    >


    Field-emission Displays (FED) have been proposed for a number of years:

    http://optics.org/articles/news/8/7/29/1

    Progress has been slow because of several technical hurdles. However, it
    does sound like Cannon and Toshiba are overcoming some of the problems.

    Neil
    Salem, MA USA
    Neil, Sep 19, 2004
    #9
  10. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Neil Guest

    "Randy Sweeney" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Matthew L. Martin" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Leonard Caillouet wrote:
    >>> "Randy Sweeney" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>RP thanks to lower temps/intensities and more stable phosphors.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> What is more stable about direct view phosphors vs RPTV and PDP
    >>> phosphors?
    >>>

    >>
    >> If there is a difference, I would suspect that RP phosphors are more
    >> stable if only to deal with the higher energy per area.
    >>
    >> Matthew

    >
    >
    > the statbility difference is between UV excited (pdp) and electron
    > phosphors (rp/crt)
    >
    > yes, the increased burn on rp is because the are driven hard and hot


    To all:

    If there is less burn-in for the phosphors in a direct view TV when compared
    to a rear projection TV, it is because the electron guns of the CRTs of the
    rear-projection TV must be driven very hard ...correct?

    The idea behind the SED (and similarly the FED, Field-emission Display) is
    that there are millions of tiny electron emitters, each of which operates at
    very low voltages, perhaps as low as 12V. In an SED or FED, the distance
    the electron must travel is very minute before it strikes the phosphor. (By
    contrast, the electron gun in a direct view TV operates in the thousands of
    volts.)

    Bear in mind too the ratio of emitters to pixels. In direct view TV you
    have one electron gun (emitter) for all of your pixels. In the rear
    projection TV you have 3 tubes, each with up to a million pixels and each
    with just one emitter. In the SED you have hundreds of thousands or
    millions of emitters for perhaps as many pixels. Considering the low
    voltage used and the ratio of emitters to pixels, I would think that at the
    instant that an electron hits the phosphor in a SED or FED, the
    instantaneous energy delivered would be thousands of times less than that
    delivered to the phosphor in a direct view TV. Wouldn't that suggest that
    any phosphor damage in the SED or FED would be at worst equal to that of a
    direct view TV?

    Forgive me if my "facts" regarding SED and FED are not totally precise. I
    am far from an expert on this subject, though I have been reading about it
    for many years. Feedback is most welcome.

    Neil
    Salem, MA USA
    Neil, Sep 19, 2004
    #10
  11. "Neil" <> wrote in message
    news:LIi3d.70259$MQ5.5925@attbi_s52...
    >
    > "Randy Sweeney" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> "Matthew L. Martin" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Leonard Caillouet wrote:
    >>>> "Randy Sweeney" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>RP thanks to lower temps/intensities and more stable phosphors.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> What is more stable about direct view phosphors vs RPTV and PDP
    >>>> phosphors?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> If there is a difference, I would suspect that RP phosphors are more
    >>> stable if only to deal with the higher energy per area.
    >>>
    >>> Matthew

    >>
    >>
    >> the statbility difference is between UV excited (pdp) and electron
    >> phosphors (rp/crt)
    >>
    >> yes, the increased burn on rp is because the are driven hard and hot

    >
    > To all:
    >
    > If there is less burn-in for the phosphors in a direct view TV when
    > compared to a rear projection TV, it is because the electron guns of the
    > CRTs of the rear-projection TV must be driven very hard ...correct?
    >
    > The idea behind the SED (and similarly the FED, Field-emission Display) is
    > that there are millions of tiny electron emitters, each of which operates
    > at very low voltages, perhaps as low as 12V. In an SED or FED, the
    > distance the electron must travel is very minute before it strikes the
    > phosphor. (By contrast, the electron gun in a direct view TV operates in
    > the thousands of volts.)
    >
    > Bear in mind too the ratio of emitters to pixels. In direct view TV you
    > have one electron gun (emitter) for all of your pixels. In the rear
    > projection TV you have 3 tubes, each with up to a million pixels and each
    > with just one emitter. In the SED you have hundreds of thousands or
    > millions of emitters for perhaps as many pixels. Considering the low
    > voltage used and the ratio of emitters to pixels, I would think that at
    > the instant that an electron hits the phosphor in a SED or FED, the
    > instantaneous energy delivered would be thousands of times less than that
    > delivered to the phosphor in a direct view TV. Wouldn't that suggest that
    > any phosphor damage in the SED or FED would be at worst equal to that of a
    > direct view TV?
    >
    > Forgive me if my "facts" regarding SED and FED are not totally precise. I
    > am far from an expert on this subject, though I have been reading about it
    > for many years. Feedback is most welcome.
    >
    > Neil
    > Salem, MA USA


    some comments

    it's not really the voltage (electron velocity) that determines brightness,
    it's the number of electrons, the flux ... the current
    but to confuse things, the current is related to the voltage, and of course
    there is a minimum energy required to excite the lower orbital electrons of
    the phosphor

    in a crt rp, the area of three 7"/9" tubes must create enough light to
    illuminate a screen many many times larger in area... so these tubes are
    pushed hard to generate the light

    in a direct view (FED/SED/CRT), the relationship between area of phosphor to
    area of screen is 1:1, so direct view phosphors run much less intensely at
    any given screen brightness
    Randy Sweeney, Sep 19, 2004
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Merlin Zener

    yet another yEnc question

    Merlin Zener, Jul 18, 2003, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,117
    Roger Vicker, CCP
    Jul 19, 2003
  2. zonkerPro
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,173
    zonkerPro
    Jan 13, 2005
  3. zonkerPro
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    387
    zonkerPro
    Jan 13, 2005
  4. Marc Luethi

    PDM woes (yet another...)

    Marc Luethi, Feb 2, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    470
    Marc Luethi
    Feb 2, 2005
  5. ForceSHO

    YACT: Yet another CEF thread..

    ForceSHO, Feb 2, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    393
Loading...

Share This Page