RSSCanon to Produce SED TVs by 2008
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published October 3, 2006, 5:03 PM
After a long series of delays characterized by turmoil in Asian markets and a continuing "bottoming out" in the LCD TV industry, Canon has finally given the green light to a project that, it says, will enable it to mass-produce a new breed of flat-screen, electron-driven television displays by early 2008.
With a development history dating back to 1986, Canon's Surface-Conduction Electron Emitter Display (SED) -- developed in a joint project with Toshiba -- may have actually been the industry's earliest prototype for flat-screen TVs. Like the old RCA cathode ray tube, an SED display produces light when electrons strike a phosphor-coated interior surface. What's different is how the electrons get there.
Rather than using an electron gun, an SED display sends electrical charges through a series of electrode pairs, the gaps between which are only a few nanometers in length. When a charge of 10 volts is applied to one electrode, the charge is provoked to jump the "nanogap," if you will, from one electron in the pair to the other.
Not all the electrons make the jump, so some of the few that get scattered will strike the phosphor plate, the resulting collision thus producing photons.
Gone is the massive electron deflection system that characterizes the standard CRT, which is what requires all that space. A console using an SED array has a width competitive with the best LCD displays on the market today: about three inches thick.
Canon is not known as a display provider, so even with an intriguing new technology that could be cost-competitive and energy efficient, it could still take a miracle for it to crack the TV and display market. Technology partner Toshiba will be of some help, although certainly not Canon's automatic ticket to success.
In worldwide unit shipment figures released just last week by analyst firm iSuppli, Toshiba was the #7 supplier of LCD TVs for the second quarter of 2006, with only 3.4% market share, with Sharp (14.5%) having just eclipsed Samsung (14.2%) as #1. This as the market for LCD TVs alone rose a colossal 119% over Q2 2005.
Demos of SED technology by Toshiba and Canon during last January's CES in Las Vegas were greeted with very warm reviews across the board. But with LCD prices falling, and the prospects for mainstream plasma TVs starting to be written off by some analysts, the key variable in SED's success will be price.
The CRT market is essentially dying, as leading Asian suppliers produce in high quantities mainly for emerging markets. So even while SED may provide crystal-clear images with impossibly high contract ratio (100,000 : 1) and low power consumption (half that of similarly sized LCDs), the new technology will face an entrenched standard. In turn, it may take more than two co-operative manufacturers to make a dent in this market.
I wonder if they will give off as much heat and brightness as the dell LCD's I have. Two 20 inch widescreens next to each other will bake a room and leave you feeling like you have radiation sickness in your face. It's like sunburn and you feel sickly. Curious if this tech would make it better or worse.
Score: 0
|Resolution would make the difference for me. If they can hit 200 dpi and keep the monitor under $500 then I'll be buying one.
Score: 0
|I'd def be interested in a monitor version.
Score: 0
|Hm... Agreed. That constast ratio looks really sexy though. 100k to 1 contrast ratio plus half the power consumption with crystal clear images seems pretty next-next-gen enough for me. I'll look forward to seeing these on display in future shop :)
Score: 0
|If they want more success, make computer monitors instead of TV displays. LCDs are fine for TVs, but IMNSHO, suck for monitors compared to CRT in the fields that I care about (resolution compared to size, overall image quality and response, yaddayadda), and will continue to do so for at least 5 more years.
Something drastic needs to be done here for us who can't stand to downgrade to LCD monitors -- and all for Joe Schmoe who never found the refresh rate setting in Windows, and/or Microsoft for playing it safe with a 60 Hz default setting...
Score: 0
|I find CRT monitors to be dark, blurry, and more susceptible to glare than LCD monitors.
My LCD is sharp, bright, has no ghosting, and doesn't hang off my desk halfway like my old CRT used to. Plus, I actually have room on my desk for my keyboard now!
Score: 0
|I find the sharpness (the square pixels) to be detrimental to the image quality. Not only has a 19" LCD an insufficient resolution for its size (I use 1600x1200 on my 19" CRT, and it's optimal... requires a high dot pitch though), but it feels even lower due to the sharp square pixels. No me gusta. Even 20" LCDs have too low a resolution compared to their size, but it's at least a little better than the worst format of them all: the 19" LCDs.
And don't get me started on brightness of LCDs... I don't understand how people can stand the brightness... I get a headache even with the brightness at 0 on modern LCDs. Terrible.
Score: 0
|I have to disagree with you on alot of your complaints...as I used to feel the same way. I find LCDs vary in image quality greatly, my own has a slightly of washed out look; but I bought it because of its excellent refresh rate, knowing I was sacrificing color. I think the "sharp square pixel" look you are talking about is just a matter of getting used to a new type of screen, as I have found you get used to it over time. (And it is less noticeable on better LCDs).
I still have to agree about the brightness though, I have the brightness on all the LCD screens I use set at 0. What, are people blind?
Score: 0
|the brightness makes me ill
Score: 0
|All about OLED and SED Display technologys at http://www.oled-display.net or http://www.oled.at (german)
Score: 0
|Another problem...
OLED technology (like in most cameras and small media devices) is going to win in the end and is getting very close with a possible 2009 release.
OLED screens can be thinner, lighter and more efficient than anything available with future diodes (the pixels) with sizes of only .05 to 0.4mm so the thickness is mainly determined by the casing, protective screen and electronics. One quarter centimeter for the main screen is feasible. The only current problem is MTBF of the diodes (the blue one is around 5000 to 20000 hrs (depending on nit) vs 60000 for LCD lamp life) and once that is solved the product will just be fine-tuned into the future. There is always a perfect solution for any given task (like the wheel) and OLED or something almost identical is it for HDTV.
So should companies invest in SED technology even though it would be superior to LCD? It looks like recovering research costs in the HDTV market is going to be very challenging.
OLED vs SED
1. mass production: OLED is already being produced. Increasing screen size once the MTBF problem has been solved will be easier and cheaper.
2. size: although fine for large TV's, OLED will still have a slight advantage and that's all that is needed in a competitive world.
3. Power: a big one. If my calculations are correct (I wouldn't stake my life on it), a 40" (approx 1m squared) with a rating of 500nit puts out the photonic equivalent of 0.7Watts. Currently, a 40" LED HDTV uses about 200W. SED power efficiency is not publicly available but I estimate a 40" screen would use between 50 and 100 Watts (including video processing).
It is believed that OLED can achieve +95% efficiency at 500nit. Therefore a 40" screen (discounting video processing, power supply and other small losses) would only use 1W. With an efficient power supply and newer, more power efficient transistors for processing the total power consumption for a 40" OLED screen may reach a maximum output of only 5 Watts (or 1/20th of a 100W light bulb).
Score: 0
|"The only current problem is MTBF of the (OLED) diodes ...and once that is solved the product will just be fine-tuned into the future."
That is assuming it can be solved. It could be an inherent property of the technology
Score: 0
|It really doesn't sound very expensive to manufacture. If they are indeed priced competitively with LCDs, I will definately scoop one up.
Score: 0
|I hope it proves worthwhile and cost-competitive. We need more competition in that market.
Score: 0
|See you in 2012...
Score: 0
|100,000:1.....jesus
Score: 0
|Not sure why this would be any harder to get onto the market than any other new technology. If it is better than LCD, and cost competative with LCD, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. Especially if the front face was covered with glass instead of plastic for durability and ease of cleaning. The brand of Canon or Toshiba would be good enough for me. I've not been too impressed with LCD TV's. Every in-depth review points out the problem with reasonably priced LCD's not being able to display enough shades of gray.
Score: 0
|light weight thin mobile stuff > heavy glass stuff
Score: 0
|Let me know when they come up with a price range.
Score: 0
|The customer doesn't care (and probably doesn't know) whether it is LCD, SED, or paint varnish. With a 100,000 contrast ratio, bright colors, and reasonable power consumption, it is a no-brainer. At first, it will cost somewhat more, but so what. It will eventually be as cheap as LCDs.
Score: 0
|