Energy Efficiency twice of LCDs
So would that be twice as energy efficient- same power, more/better image for it or consuming half the power for the same image?
It's the one with the nit-picking apparatus in the pocket.
A Sony affiliate plans to launch large Field Emission Display (FED) TVs next year, a move that could see the firm trump attempts by rivals to commercialise a similar next-generation telly type: Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display (SED). FED_sony Sony's FET arm could have 26in FED TVs out by next year According to a …
Would be to use a single electron source. This would have to be placed further behind the screen for obvious reasons, but an alternating electric field could be used to make the beam scan the screen which would be coated with the same phosphor pixels. I should patent it :P
I think you'll find the reason why SED isn't on the shelves at the moment is actually down to Applied Nanotech holding the patent to the Carbon Nanotubes and them being arsey about the fact that Canon licenced it to Toshiba, which it didn't like.
It even forced Canon to buy Toshiba out of the Licencing agreement and took them to court to try to get even more money out of them.
But they've sufficiently angered Canon enough for Canon to put a hold on SED production for the medium to long term.
http://www.appliednanotech.net/ is their website.
Pioneer are not stopping plasma production. They are outsourcing the panel manufacturing to Panasonic.
Pioneer Kuros are the sweetest displays ever. Why would they stop making them? Its just a dam shame no-one (with a normal job!) can afford them.
I must say that is one dam fine coat hes wearing.
FED has been a "Real Soon Now" technology for the last 10 or 15 years. The main obstacle to its commercial introduction has been the degradation of the field emitters (originally microscopic tungsten spikes) over time. If carbon nanotubes are a solution to this problem, FEDs could be a serious competitor to other display technologies.
With a single source it might work for monochrome displays, you'd need to deflect and focus it on the surface. That's a non-trivial thing to get right. You'd need 3 sources for colour. And although it seems easy to use that with special wires or plates with holes, it's all very non-trivial. There have been companies trying that, but most failed.
Fair point, but since the response time is faster and the phosphor could be operated at shorter duty cycle, the sharpness for *moving* images certainly could beat LCD.
A second consideration is that it is well-known in display and imaging circles that more contrast (blacker blacks) greatly enhances the *perceived* sharpness.
What? 26" is far too SMALL to see the benefits of HDTV (especially Full HD 1080p) at any 'normal' TV viewing distance. You'd need to sit at about computer monitor viewing distance for your eyes (unless you are Superman) to be able to resolve the detail. That is why Full HD TVs generally only start at 37" and upwards. In a large living room, you might quite realistically be sitting 10-12 feet from the screen, and a 60" would be perfect at that distance for watching Full HD content.
Obviously 60" will be a relative niche market, but if they can build screens at that size, they will be able to build at the more mainstream 32-40" sizes.