Tue 26 Jun 2007
Not much going on in the SED TV world lately. We can only hope that Nano Proprietary and Canon are doing some negotiating.
Summer is here, so if there is nothing earthshattering in the SED TV field, this blog may be quiet for a while. Hope everyone out there has a great summer.
P.S. Keep your fingers crossed…
Technorati Tags: SED TV, Nano Proprietary
July 14th, 2007 at 6:35 am
I feel that if they don’t get it out soon, then it will be another dead technology. I’ve been waiting a long time for this to hit the market before I go to a flat screen. Demands from the family, who don’t care about the Technology – only about the When, are starting to push for a purchase this year.
I think Nano Proprietary will kill the goose to get more golden eggsp
July 18th, 2007 at 9:39 am
I fear that the blog may be quiet because SED is dead. My fingers are crossed, but it seems the childish behavior of Nano Proprietary has killed SED.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Quite a bit invested for it to just disappear.
Just curious – has anyone posting on this forum had the opportunity to see an SED set in person?
I took a look at one of Pioneers new Kuro displays. Probably the best display you can buy right now. Good color / contrast / viewing angle, but still suffers from the typical video noise inherent of plasma.
I would like to know if SED exhibits the same level of video noise.
In any case, I may end up just going with the Pioneer. I feel like I could name a dozen things wrong with almost every display tech out there (CRT, LCD, DLP, LCOS, etc), just worried I’m holding out for SED only to be disappointed in some other way.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:40 pm
I wish Canon would act like a responsible company and do what’s right for their customers but it’s obvious that they don’t care about them. Their only concern is to increase their profits by getting the best deal possible. They’re the ones who breached the contract [as ruled by the courts] so they need to get over it and move forward. They (and anybody else) are complete morons if they think they should get the same deal 9 years later. Is the price of gasoline the same as it was 9 years ago, or anything else? Why is there always an expiration date on discounts, coupons and sales? It’s simple economics, get over it.
July 23rd, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Hi Andy,
I had tickets to CES 2007 so I ALMOST saw an SED TV. That’s the closest I’ve been so far. Here’s hoping for more luck at CES 2008!
July 26th, 2007 at 9:28 am
GKDiamond; Maybe Canon paid Nano with gasoline in the first place years back? Can you imagine? Nano must be rolling in it now huh?
Perhaps Canon should pay twice as much more for what they already bought. I mean… I know I’d like to stop at the store I bought my TV from and re-pay for it at twice what I originally purchased it for.
I’m honestly pretty surprised Nano won the lawsuit seeing as how to the agreement itself allowed for exactly what Canon did.
I just hope I can find as good a lawyer for my next speeding ticket.
August 1st, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Andy,
You’re comparing apples to oranges. Your TV would cost less than half of what you paid for it 9 years ago, way less – if they still made it. I’d be happy to sell you mine for twice the price plus shipping and 3% for paypal of course.
“Perhaps Canon should pay twice as much more for what they already bought.” …Perhaps you’re right. That’s the breaks when you breach a contract. Hey, perhaps I should ask my insurance company why I pay two and a half times as much for the same coverage now (and their still cheaper than anyone else).
Just where in Nano’s contract/agreement does it say that Canon can share Nano’s technology with another unlicensed company?
You don’t need a lawyer, just show up in court, the officer probably will not and you win. By the way, it’s the judge who made the decision not the attorneys. Maybe Nano paid him off with gasoline.
P.S.: Of couse you should hold-off for SED, it will be one of the best displays [qualifier: there are some promising technologies in development]. In the mean time, get a cheap 720p LCD and move it to another room when the SED is available or I’ll take it in trade for some gasoline.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
1) That was my point.
2) Not sure why your ins is so high or keeps going up, lead food? What that has to do with SED is beyond me. I assume your still trying to drive the inflation point home, but you need to remember that money spent in the past was money in the bank, and “inflated” too. Probably more so as an investment.
3) Not sure where your going with that statement? I could add a worthless comment too such as: “Your forgetting that Nano is spelled with an N” but pointing out the obvious in response to a post that has nothing to do with what you wrote seems silly.
-ok I probably just confused you-
Canon’s Agreement with Nano allowed the IP to be shared with Canon’s subsidiaries. SED Inc. By law was a subsidiary of Canon. There ya go. clear as mud.
Since you apparently didn’t know that you would probably also be interested to hear that the judge residing over the case (Sam Sparks) didn’t rule on the case based on the letter of the law, but rather the interpretation of the intent of the agreement. (Hence the appeal)
Lastly as far as SED TV being one of the best displays; yes they are… one of the best.
Please keep in mind they aren’t that different from Plasma, do some research on the differences or simply read up on the older comments that point out the differences, I’m guessing you will be surprised.
August 12th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
1. Yes that was your point and my point was it is very wrong. You’re comparing a used commodity with current goods and services. Goods and services increase over time due to all the various economic aspects whereas used products generally depreciate over time and have little to do with all the factors of price increases.
2. I was talking about my home [hazard] insurance but all insurances increase over time, again for the obvious reasons – the cost of raw materials, fees, labor, regulations, etc. What??? Money doesn’t get inflated, it’s just worth less as time goes on.
3. “Canon’s Agreement with Nano allowed the IP to be shared with Canon’s subsidiaries. SED Inc. By law was a subsidiary of Canon. There ya go. clear as mud.”
Well, you got the last part right, “clear as mud.” Because Canon said SED Inc. was a subsidiary doesn’t make it so. U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks (in November 2006 before the trial) pointed out that although Canon had one more voting share in SED Inc. than Toshiba did, it had agreed not to use its share advantage to outvote Toshiba on matters governed by the joint venture and that Canon had bargained away its’ voting rights, and he wrote, “Canon’s dead voting rights do not give it a majority of SED.” So you see, SED Inc. was not a subsidiary of Canon. As a result, Canon purchased all of Toshiba’s outstanding shares of SED Inc. to make it a wholly owned subsidiary of Canon.
“… the judge residing over the case (Sam Sparks) didn’t rule on the case based on the letter of the law, but rather the interpretation of the intent of the agreement. (Hence the appeal)”
That doesn’t make sense, all contracts must be interpreted on their intent. As for as the decision on the lawsuit, a jury determined that Canon had breached the contract. The judge made the decision on the subsidiary issue. As far as an appeal, everybody appeals.
In my opinion, where Nano did get greedy was in trying to cash in on royalties for the displays (which they were denied).
I wish Toshiba (and/or Canon) had just paid the additional licensing fees and all the problems could have been avoided and we’d have been looking forward to SED displays very soon.
Actually I’m pretty familiar with the technologies. The Plasma display is based on phosphors just like SED and CRT displays but it does not use an electron emitter. SED technology is much closer to the CRT which is still considered the best display overall. Instead of one large electron gun (CRT) SED essentually has one for every pixel. SED TVs have a response time of less than a millisecond (even faster than CRT) which is quite a bit faster than Plasma. SEDs brightness and color quality is comparable to CRTs as well as its’ contrast ratio, gray-scale and black levels, if not better, which is not true of Plasma displays. SED power consumption is up to half that of project displays and two-thirds that of an LCD of comparable size. Plasma uses considerbly more power. Take a look at OLED and FED technologies, they are also looking very promising.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Thanks for the great comments Andy and GK. Keep stirring the pot!
August 17th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Goods and services do not increase in value over time, the paper that backs those goods and services just seems to have a trend to depreciate.
…That doesn’t make sense, all contracts must be interpreted on their intent…
I’m sorry that didn’t make sense, perhaps if you re-read it a few times, you will be able to better “interpret” it… perhaps even correctly.
…Actually I’m pretty familiar with the technologies. The Plasma display is based on phosphors just like SED and CRT displays but it does not use an electron emitter….
What does Plasma use then? A magic juice emitter? lol
…SED technology is much closer to the CRT….
It must be because it doesn’t use the magic juice like Plasma does! Not sure I’ll live that one down
….Instead of one large electron gun (CRT) SED essentually has one for every pixel…..
1) I didn’t realize SED had ANY guns, I thought it used micro-emitters and a high voltage accelerator.
2) One emitter for every pixel? Since when did SED become monochrome? SED actually uses 3 emitters per pixel (one per sprite.)
….SEDs brightness and color quality is comparable to CRTs as well as its’ contrast ratio, gray-scale and black levels, if not better, which is not true of Plasma displays….
What SED? What Plasma? What CRT? What method are you measuring with?
SED’s can turn an emitter off, so yes they will have excellent color and contrast if controlled accurately. – CRT’s experience too much light blooming to score very well with any type of mixed content / checkerboard pattern. Top end plasmas excel there. In fact, not surprisingly Pioneer claims their latest Plasma to be better then SED. Wonder how Sparks would interpret that
August 18th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Now you’re just being silly. If the value of paper (money) depreciates then the cost of goods and services increase. That’s called inflation. Goods and services are not backed by paper they are traded for money or something of value or bartered.
It still doesn’t make sense and the judge did rule on the case based on the letter of the law. Canon did not have a majority vote in SED so it wasn’t a subsidiary per the law. Again, the actual lawsuit was decided by a jury not the judge.
“What does Plasma use then? A magic juice emitter?”
No liquid is used, just gas! Plasma screens use a small electric pulse for each pixel [red, green and blue phosphors make up a triad which makes up a single pixel] to excite the rare natural gases argon, neon and xenon used to produce the color information and light. The phosphors are not excited by an electron emitter they are excited by UV light produced by electromagnetically charged plasma.
“1) I didn’t realize SED had ANY guns, I thought it used micro-emitters and a high voltage accelerator.”
You’re splitting hairs. It’s just terminology, an electron gun is an electron emitter. Both use electron emitters to activate phosphors on a screen, both use high voltage accelerators and yes SEDs use micro-emitters [The electron emission element is made from an ultra-thin electron emission film that is just a few nanometers thick].
“2) One emitter for every pixel? Since when did SED become monochrome? SED actually uses 3 emitters per pixel (one per sprite.)”
I was not trying to describe every detail that didn’t really matter that’s why I said essentially but you are correct, SEDs use a separate emitter for each color phosphor (3 per pixel, or 1 per sub-pixel). BTW, if you want to split hairs how would one emitter per pixel be monochromatic, whose to say what color (sub-pixel) the emitter would be aimed at for each pixel. You could have red in some, green in others and blue in the rest.
“What SED? What Plasma? What CRT? What method are you measuring with?”
You are just being silly again. In this type of comparison we are considering the best of each technology (generalizing) just as you were when you said that SEDs aren’t that different from Plasma. If not, what method are you measuring with and what SED and Plasma?
“In fact, not surprisingly Pioneer claims their latest Plasma to be better then SED. Wonder how Sparks would interpret that
”
I think Sparks would say something like – how in the world can Pioneer possibly make such a claim, no proof no evidence, they don’t even have an SED display to measure. I think his written opinion would be – marketing foofoo.
I agree with you, Pioneers claim is not surprising.
August 20th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
SED TV Guy – if your interested; I placed an order earlier today for a Pioneer Kuro Display (PDP-6010FD) I was rather surprised to find them in stock at several online e-tailers. They were not anticipated to be available until October. I should have it possibly by the end of this week. I know this is an SED forum but let me know if you want some pictures as to what Pioneer claims to be better then SED.
Personally I think SED has more potential and a long-run cost advantage (if it ever makes it to market) (printed micro-emitters v.s. Deep Encased Cell Structure / Crystal Emissive layer v.s. glass sub straight / etc…)
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:32 pm
I’m definitely interested in pictures of any competing technology you may have. Thanks.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Here’s the line-up, pictures, reviews, etc. Not sure why the 6010 is not there, maybe they haven’t update the site yet. Other than [the better] CRTs the Kuros look like the best technology out there right now all things considered.
http://www.pioneer.co.uk/uk/images/uk/kuro/
August 27th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Yeah not sure why the 6010 wasn’t listed there either. It is listed here however:
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pna/v3/pg/kuro/demo/full/0,,2076_310069651,00.html
8/28 is the (scheduled delivery) day I get mine.
September 5th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Not really sure what to say about the new TV. It provides by far the best picture I have seen yet for watching video.
For those of you who only want to hear what’s wrong with it, here goes:
cNET has commented about the greens being bad. I don’t think they are talking about the accuracy of the green so much as the motion problems with the green phosphor “after-glow”. This phenomenon occurs on ALL phosphor based displays. If any of you have a CRT monitor and would like to see it, Simply set your background to BLACK, enable “Show contents while dragging” and slide a white window left / right over the black background, you will see a faint green trail as you move the window around.
Someone has described this “con” as a fat kid on a teeter-totter indicating it is so minor, it doesn’t really matter.
Also: don’t think of this “con” as a con compared to other techs, as almost every other tech (e.g. LCD) handles this much worse. (trails every color instead of just green, and even more latent)
Watching Movies, I can say this is VERY hard to notice, even looking for it.
Another CON I would like to point out is the loss of shadow and bright detail.
I have read comments that this set is one of the best for shadow detail, but I would beg to differ. The 3 gamma curves that are provided all offer VERY MINOR differences, all of which seem to crush BOTH the white and the DARK. The Crush is very minor ~6 driving levels. None of the various “enhancements” fixed this issue. Raising the brightness / contrast only helped to a point, but would never fully eliminate it.
Power consumption is rather high as well at over 500W. (puts off alot of heat)
What else can I list as a con? … The Zoom mode doesn’t “zoom” wide content properly, it instead stretches it out vertically.
The bezel is gloss black and is sharply contrast against the glass screen making the screen look sorta gray (when off)…. If that can be considered a con.
All in all though, the set has a very photographic look to it compared to other displays and let me stress that compared to everything else I’ve ever seen, this display is by far the best I’ve seen.
The black bars fade into the room.
Bright whites exist next to dark blacks.
Images have incredible pop and vibrance.
Detail and sharpness is unbelivable.
Noise filters do an excellent job of removing compression artifacts on less then perfect sources, etc etc, everything else you’ve probably already read.
(VeriLUM measured the black lvl at 0.01) The lowest it could measure which puts it in the 0.0149 – 0.0049 range.
September 5th, 2007 at 10:29 am
oops 0.0050 (not 0.0049) lol
January 15th, 2008 at 12:43 am
It is now Jan 2008 nothing on the SED news front, I argued with some individual on this site last year on Nano’s greed. He defended their actions on account of securing shareholder value i.e. greed. The fact I have heard nothing points to me that the opportunity for SED is long gone. We can only hope, as I have said before, that some other similar technology will come from Sony or another major company. Else, we have to swallow and purchase the Plasma or LCD and soon considering the format war seems to have been won by BLUE-RAY.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:10 am
So here I am again, the only person writing on this site. I have heard nothing nor have I looked to see if anything new has transpired. I think what I said last year was correct, how any right minded person would think that Nano’s greedy tactic wasn’t going to backfire or thought it was right is beyond me but once again, and it is unfortunate, I have to gloat and pronounce that I was right..so whoever you were eat crow!!! I am just sad to see such a great technology not reaching the mainstream.