SED moves along, comes closer.

sorry i just did a quick search and i can't remember where i read it but it was either on bit-tch or daily tech or they may of said that LCD will be still the best for smaller screens
 
I think it's more like the margins are better when selling TVs, so they'll put off doing computer monitors until later.
 
travbomb said:
I dont think the human eye can distinguish much above 800:1 so these specs are probably just gonna be a pissing a contest.
Click to expand...

I can, I consider 800:1 poor compared to my CRT. Also those 5000:1 plasma/LCD TV's are good but still much lower than what I want.
 
I think he's talking about "real" 800:1. Last I heard, no LCD actually gets over 400:1 despite what manufacturers spec them at.
 
The dynamic range of the human eye in daylight conditions, to a single image, can be as high as 4 (10,000:1). The total dynamic range of the eye can be as high as 9 (1 billion:1). Of course, that can't be in the same scene, because the pupil has to adjust for different parts of that scale.

Of course, 100,000:1 contrast ratio is gibberish. Almost no image source that would be displayed on such a screen has that kind of dynamic range to begin with.
 
rhashem said:
The dynamic range of the human eye in daylight conditions, to a single image, can be as high as 4 (10,000:1). The total dynamic range of the eye can be as high as 9 (1 billion:1). Of course, that can't be in the same scene, because the pupil has to adjust for different parts of that scale.

Of course, 100,000:1 contrast ratio is gibberish. Almost no image source that would be displayed on such a screen has that kind of dynamic range to begin with.
Click to expand...

I agree with what your saying however once you reach 10,000-15000:1 contrast ratio that is roughly comparable to a CRT. Compare this to a high-end LCD which struggles to hit even 1000:1, dynamic contrast ratio techniques do not count only static.
 
travbomb said:
I dont think the human eye can distinguish much above 800:1 so these specs are probably just gonna be a pissing a contest.
Click to expand...


Lol. Human eye can distuingis just in only different grays something like that, could've been even more.
 
Scyles said:
I think he's talking about "real" 800:1. Last I heard, no LCD actually gets over 400:1 despite what manufacturers spec them at.
Click to expand...

Even Dell 2007wfp is _real_, measured ~1:600.
 
Yeah....well, the Brightside LCD has an infinite contrast ratio.

I think it's just a marketing scheme to advertise "100,000:1 contrast ratio!" When it comes to any CRT or SED, a person simply doesn't have to care what the blackest black is, since it's nothing like a lit-up LCD backlight.
 
LCD is a passive device hence it needs a backlight, for this reason alone your black level will allways be poor compared to CRT/SED. There is no fix and no solution it is simply the nature of LCD. By the time brightstar is scaled down and ready for mass production it will be too late and your still left with the original LCD drawbacks.
 
Some of the newer active backlight / hybrid OLED LCDs which can modulate the backlight (but not quite per pixel) will start bringing the contrast ratios of LCDs up in the future, especially once they face competition from production SED. Sharp has 100,000:1 CR LCDs using this sort of technology at a few shows now (CES, etc.) but they will be for the high end initially.

SED will be expensive and high end initially as well, to help recoup their investment costs but if it turns out to be easy to manufacture and yields are good, I'm sure computer monitor sized displays won't be far behind.
 
sethk said:
Some of the newer active backlight / hybrid OLED LCDs
Click to expand...


Why the heck would you want a hybrid OLED/LCD with multicell OLED backlight when you can just have an OLED at every cell? Why get all the downsides of both technologies?

OLED has much more promise that LCD in the future. Emissive technologies make more sense than using a backlight technolgies backed by low res emissive technology.

Brightside will always be a niche.
 
Brightside will have its uses but its a niche product, OLED is also an alternative however its response time is currently higher than LCD. Nothing can touch SED's <1ms period, only because its CRT based will you achieve that kind of speed.
 
Kherozene said:
too bad there wont be any smaller sized screens (for PC use)
Click to expand...

Scyles said:
Where did you hear that?
Click to expand...


From what I understand, they won't have them (at least at first) because as there is one electron gun behind each pixel, they need to shrink these electron guns even further to get them down to the small size needed for a computer monitor (think a 45" 1920x1080 display, vs. a 24" 1920x1200... obviously the guns need to be much smaller)
 
that is what i thought, they would need to make things a whole lot mor compact in order to get the same resolutions, which means costly production.
 
Kherozene said:
that is what i thought, they would need to make things a whole lot mor compact in order to get the same resolutions, which means costly production.
Click to expand...

Costly? Smaller = able to produce more = the opposite, probably? Of course development costs, but production..
 
problem with SED is that its still the same type of light as CRT. its fine for large screens that you sit far away from, but a big reason why i like lcd's is becasue they dont hurt your eyes.
 
krupted said:
problem with SED is that its still the same type of light as CRT. its fine for large screens that you sit far away from, but a big reason why i like lcd's is becasue they dont hurt your eyes.
Click to expand...
85Hz+ Hz your eyes?
 
Closer.....close enough for me to pick up nice SED 22-24" widescreen monitor for around $500-$600 in next 6 months? Didn't think so. :(
 
zzz said:
85Hz+ Hz your eyes?
Click to expand...

its not the refresh rate. its the type of light generated. lcd's being a passive, flourescent light makes it much less stressful on your eyes. crt's have a direct firing ray light. i cant it explain it well, but i sure notice the difference.
 
its not the refresh rate. its the type of light generated. lcd's being a passive, flourescent light makes it much less stressful on your eyes. crt's have a direct firing ray light. i cant it explain it well, but i sure notice the difference.
Click to expand...

Sorry to break it to you, but there is only one kind of light :-/ If its the same brightness and frequency, it's the same light.

The reason CRTs are harsh on your eyes has to do with lousy focus, sharpness, convergence, and flicker*. In theory, SED won't suffer from these problem.

*) Yes, even on "good" Trinitrons. I owned some nice CRTs back in the day, but I'm never going near one again...
 
In 20+ years of computer use, only one screen ever hurt my eyes and it was an LCD. I am not the only one:
http://cloanto.com/users/mcb/19960719lcd.html

I currently have both on the same computer. My current LCD is not a problem and neither is my CRT.

There is no magical crt light and different lcd light. If you have no clue why CRT causes you discomfort, you have no clue if SED will do the same. The likely CRT culprits are either a blurry or flickering screen. Neither are likely with SED, which doesn't scan (flicker) and doesn't have focus issues (as there is nothing to focus, always perfect).

So wait and see before you assume magical CRT rays are going tot get you.
 
magical crt rays! hahaha well in my experience its every crt ive seen and i normally run at 80hz refresh rates. many people i talk to say the same thing as i, so i dont know. btw, there are different kinds of light rays, maybe not between screens but there are uv, gamma, and others
 
Araanor said:
I think it's more like the margins are better when selling TVs, so they'll put off doing computer monitors until later.
Click to expand...

They also can get away with a much lower resolution with TVs. The models they are showing only do 1080P HD. Current 30" computer LCDs run at 2560 x 1600, so the 36 inch SED screens shown by the other companies would need to be even higher than that.

I am not holding my breath about getting one for my computer. Even if SED screens went into mass production today, it would still be 3-5 years before they really become an affordable alternative to LCDs.

That said, I am excited about this getting closer. I am still running a CRT HDTV and it would be great to just skip over LCD and plasma and go straight to SED even if I had to pay a large premium.
 
krupted said:
magical crt rays! hahaha well in my experience its every crt ive seen and i normally run at 80hz refresh rates. many people i talk to say the same thing as i, so i dont know. btw, there are different kinds of light rays, maybe not between screens but there are uv, gamma, and others
Click to expand...
80Hz isn't even a standard rate...you sure that's correct?

At 100Hz I seriously doubt you'd have any eye strain. 60Hz is another story, and maybe that's what you're used to seeing.
 
it was 85. i really dont think it was a refresh problem, maybe the emf that crt's produce?
 
There can't be much EMF. EMF is proportional to current magnitude, and CRTs don't draw much power (compared to my 5400W clothes dryer or 1000W microwave).
 
EMF intesity drops off with the square of the distance between you and the equipment - you sit too far from the monitor (unless you wear it as a hat) to worry about it.
 
krupted said:
magical crt rays! hahaha well in my experience its every crt ive seen and i normally run at 80hz refresh rates. many people i talk to say the same thing as i, so i dont know. btw, there are different kinds of light rays, maybe not between screens but there are uv, gamma, and others
Click to expand...

er... no. There is only one kind of light. Different frequencies give you different colors. Too high a frequency and you can't see them anymore (UV), too low and you can't see them again (IR).

What can hurt your eyes is the flickering, intensity or being out of focus. And it's not due to having a 'cannon' fired at your eyes, but the eye strain caused by trying to focus on such an image.

The 'cannon firing at your eyes' and 'harmful radiation' myths have been invented as a marketing ploy when screen protectors came out.
 
Prediction: They will install one of the first SED displays my future retirement home
 
I hope that means you're really old. This S-PVA panel isn't cutting it for me, and I'd much rather invest in SED than buy an IPS panel.
 
Scyles said:
I hope that means you're really old. This S-PVA panel isn't cutting it for me, and I'd much rather invest in SED than buy an IPS panel.
Click to expand...

I would not count on SED anytime soon. Manufacturers will be focusing on LED come the next few years.
 
travbomb said:
I would not count on SED anytime soon. Manufacturers will be focusing on LED come the next few years.
Click to expand...

Wanna bet? If they know they can move ten's of thousands of SEDs and make $$$ we will be seeing them soon.

This will be my next monitor that NO LCD lamer can approach and match :D

image010.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top