Fri 15 Feb 2008
Canon has a reissue patent covering SED TV technology. United States Patent RE40,062 was reissued February 12, 2008. It apparently has some modifications from previous SED TV patents. This may be the beginning of Canon’s attempt to produce SED panels without using the Nano-Proprietary patented technology.
Here’s an excerpt:
Yoshioka , et al. February 12, 2008
Display device with electron-emitting device with electron-emitting region insulated from electrodes
Abstract
A display device includes an electron-emitting device which is a laminate of an insulating layer and a pair of opposing electrodes formed on a planar substrate. A portion of the insulating layer is between the electrodes and contains fine particles of an electron emitting substance, that portion acting as an electron emitting region. Electrons are emitted from the electron emission region by applying a voltage to the electrodes, thereby stimulating a phosphorous to emit light.
Inventors: Yoshioka; Seishiro (Hiratsuka, JP), Nomura; Ichiro (Atsugi, JP), Suzuki; Hidetoshi (Yokohama, JP), Takeda; Toshihiko (Yokohama, JP), Kaneko; Tetsuya (Yokohama, JP), Banno; Yoshikazu (Machida, JP), Yokono; Kojiro (Yokohama, JP)
For a much more detailed review by someone who knows what he’s talking about, check out the full story at donpatent.blogspot.com
Technorati Tags: Canon, SED TV, Nano-Proprietary
February 16th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Canon SED TV Patent Reissued…
Canon has modified it’s SED TV patent in an attempt to bypass the Nano-Proprietary SED patents….
February 18th, 2008 at 3:38 am
Really would hate to see everyone with a LCD in their house with no complaints
February 26th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Wish come true? -cool
Andy Says:
May 4th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I don’t really find it surprising at all. Canon never went to market with a single panel. To award damages above and beyond the 5.x million dollars they basically paid for “nothing” would have been absurd. I would like to see Canon develop an alternate method of making this work that doesn’t require Nano’s IP.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
In my opinion, there is no worthy successor to the CRT today. LC displays are for mobile phones and laptops, the way they were meant to be used for from the beginning.
I realy hope that SED will be the “salvation” of future TV sets and perhaps also medium to large monitors in general. And, of course, that it will reach the market.
I just hope that this patent reissue will just come around the patent problem and not makes the technology less good.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
no worthy successor to CRT or Phosphor based displays?
Plasma is basically a more expensive version of SED.
I see Pioneer is leaving the Plasma business to move on to cheaper displays that sell better. not sure if this is an omen of something around the corner, or just a re-iteration of “People don’t want to pay for quality”
The thing really driving SED is that it is a cheap way of producing a plasma like (phosphor) panel.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Pioneer is NOT “leaving the Plasma business”. They will still make the electronics, but the panels will be made by Matsushita to cut costs. In fact, their Gen 10 plasmas (10-lumen tech) are still on schedule for a 2009 release.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Happy for Canon, Nano knows they blew it and got lucky with a American court ruling. Nano = JERKS.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Andy I suggest you go and do a little research
before making statements like you have re SED
and PLASMA, apart from the lack of HEAT, and
LOWER power usage, and having a much HIGHER
light output, SED also is thinner, yes I know
pioneer demonstrated a 9mm thick plasma, but
SED can be made HALF that thickness, all in all
Andy, PLASMA and SED apart from both using a phospher display have really nothing in common at all,
April 12th, 2008 at 6:51 am
We have gained size and resolution at the cost of just everyting else. I just bought an LCD-tv for my parents. What a piece of shit… And no, it was certainly not the cheapest I could find.
Plasmas are okay, but there´s still too much problems with them for me to accept them as a real successor.
10-15 years ago, no one talked about brightness, contrast ratio and viewing angle.
Btw, who is running this site? It has been quiet here lately. Here´s some news. http://www.japancorp.net/Article.Asp?Art_ID=17308
A bit old now, but new here
April 19th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Hi Mikael and everyone else,
Thanks for reminding me that I’m supposed to be running this site. I’ve neglected it for a while. Sorry. I’ll try to keep things going here despite the current lack of real news. If anyone is interested in writing on SED TV news or the technology itself, please feel free to contact me at allenj62@gmail.com. Thanks.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Rocky, while your at it, why don’t you add that Plasma “now”, and Plasma “then” also have nothing in common at all, as that is about how obsurd your comment is about the differences you have stated.
*sigh*
April 24th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
gkdaimond; Could you provide a link to the article stating Pioneer will continue releasing Plasma? Everything I read indicates they are done. Just today the following news was announced:
Pioneer and Matsushita (Panasonic) have finally hammered out the basics of a deal that will allow the latter to supply panels for future Kuro plasma displays, and plasma HDTV fans to breathe easy again. Pending a final agreement in May, dollars and cents remain undisclosed, but we can expect a fusion of Panasonic’s current “Neo PDP” technology from its Viera line when they begin production May 2009 in Amagasaki before hitting shelves in the fall. Kuro will still be maintained as a premium brand (with a premium price) with different image processing, while both companies plan to keep working together on reducing power consumption and the infinite black level plasma. Pioneer still plans future Kuro LCD HDTVs based on panels from Sharp,but it’ll also apparently have access to IPS technology from Panasonic’s tie-up with Canon and Hitachi. See? We told you it’d be okay.
Source: http://www.engadgethd.com/tag/KURO
It is (was?) believed that Panasonic will/would be selling the sets and purchasing the electronics and rights to call it “Kuro” from Pioneer.
Do you have a link to anymore more definitive?
http://www.dvhardware.net/article25697.html
As we predicted several years ago, plasma technology is on its way out. Putting one of the nails in the lengthy coffin is Pioneer Corp, who is stopping ALL production of plasma display panels. Last week we reported that they had decided to stop all 42-inch panel production, however that has now been expanded to its entire plasma line. This comes via an industry source briefed on the plan and quoted by Reuters in an article released today. Rather than panic, Pioneer shares immediately jumped to a four-month high following the report - up 11.2 percent.
May 1st, 2008 at 8:25 pm
well Andy, based on your reply to my SED / PLASMA
differences, it was done that way, so as to be not too technical for the average jo blow, would
you understand the word PLASMA and its creation?
and would CRT and its function be also widely
understood by most consumers? I don’t think so,
if a PLASMA PANEL and a SED PANEL both functioned the same way, then SED would be called a PLASMA PANEL Andy, the earlier PLASMA
PANELS functioned exactly the same way the current ones do Andy, the latest ones have a
refinement in their structure, more efficient, darker filters, smaller ribs, but they STILL
OPERATE the same way,
as I said EARLIER Andy do some RESEARCH!
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:57 am
> Plasma is basically a more expensive
> version of SED.
No, it really isn’t. In plasma screens the phosphors are excited by ultra-violet light emitted by an electrical discharge passing through ionised gas - think of each sub-pixel as being like a tiny flurorescent tube. With SED the phosphors are excited by multiple electron beams, one per sub-pixel.
There are two very important differences. The less significant one is that it is impossible to switch a plasma pixel completely off; there is always some current leakage, which makes the pixel still glow a little even when it is supposed to be perfectly black. SED will have far darker blacks.
The much more important difference is that plasma pixels have only two states: full on, and full off, with nothing in between. In order to simulate a pixel having variable brightness the pixel is actually flashed on and off multiple times during each frame. A “bright” pixel is switched on most of the time, while a darker one is on for a smaller fraction of the frame.
Operating like this creates various motion artefacts on plasma, and the possibility of rainbows (not to the extent that you see them on single-chip DLP, but still quite visible). But with SED you can actually vary the brightness of the pixel directly rather than having to emulate it by turning it on and off quickly.
Potentially you can also have a scanned image on SED - the picture being flashed up and then immediately fading to black between frames. This also makes for a much smoother perception of motion.
May 10th, 2008 at 1:40 am
Nicolas that explanation is correct, just
needed the additional power usage explanation
to top it off, there it is Andy given to you
by Nicolas with out you having to lift a finger and expend a little energy and find out yourself, by the way andy do you know what
types of OLED there are? don’t help him Nicolas, let him find out himself,
May 18th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Andy,
You can find find information about the future of Pioneer Plasma displays at the Audio Asylum Forums:
http://www.audioasylum.com/index.htm
and the AVS Forums:
http://www.avsforum.com/
There is an interview with Paul Meyhoefer (Pioneer VP) in the current (June 2008) issue of Home Theater Magazine on page 17 in which he states, “There is a combination of three critical parts that make up KURO technology: panel driving, video-processing circuitry, and filter technology, which all go beyond the attributes of the panel itself. Pioneer is only seeking partnership to manufacture the panel module itself. The panels will then be finished in Pioneer’s assembly and finishing plants where many of the critical components are added.
On another note, as far as Plasma Vs. SED technology, we had a discussion on this site almost a year ago (June 2007). Other than the fact that they both use Phosphors they are VERY different.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Thanks Nicholas,
For you most informative post regarding the differences between Plasma and SED.
I’m glad that Canon is moving forward with SED.