Canon & Toshiba brought
SED out at CEATEC 2006 to show that this
CRT in a flat panel's body will finally be hitting shelves in limited quantities by late 2007, and
entering mass production in 2008. Leading the charge will be these 1080p 55-inch models with 450 nits of brightness, 50,000:1 contrast ratio (yes, you read that right), stunning 1ms response time...and no price tag yet. Part of the delay for SED has been so Canon and Toshiba can improve cost effectiveness to accompany the incredible specs, but with
Samsung,
Sharp and
Sony releasing "Full HD" LCDs in the 50-inch range for around 5 large this fall, the market in 2008 could be tough to crack.
[Via
Reuters]
posted Oct 3rd 2006 10:21AM
50,000:1 ? 1ms? Count me in, just keep it in the same range as current HDTVs please.
Let's not compare these beauties with mere mortal direct view LCDs at the same resolution. They are in a totally different league image quality wise.
I just wish I never witnessed them back in January. Ruined me to all other types of HDTVs forever. Now I have to wait until 2008.... :(
About time, but don't seem very bright.
So since these are like CRT's will they have burn in issues with video games?
Robotron, you are in for a big surprise. These aren't going to be anywhere near the price of current technologies. Nobody really knows yet, but I'd say 2-3x the price is a fair guess.
No, no burn-in issues (unless you leave the same image on the screen for MANY hours).
Canon and Toshiba want to take major market share from everyone else and burn-in is the main thing that hurts Plasma (when compared with LCD).
While Plasma and LCD will continue to fall in price, SED's will likely fill in the higher end consumer price point vacated by falling LCD and Plasma prices.
I've been waiting around to see the new SED tv's and definitely want one in the future. Currently got a Toshiba 32" LCD (WLT66) (my review here: http://sharpfish.realityfakers.com/?p=52 for anyone interested ) and thats great, those last remaining LCD flaws gone with this new technology is worth the premium (but obviously only when the price has dropped after a year or so).
So pencil me in for 2009 then! ;)
Brad, I don't think that will be an issue. Unless I am mistaken the only CRT sets that had burn in issues were rear projection CRTs. These I believe are comparable to a CRT tube television. That and technology has gotten better, even LCDs don't seem to suffer horrible burn in issues anymore.
I thought SED was going to be *cheaper* ?
I just hope they come out with SED PC monitors. I just want a 1920x1440 25" SED monitor. Throw in the freakin necessary evil HDCP, and if possible component inputs. Is that too much to ask?
Ah TexRob, giver of all things, um, entirely speculative (and most likely WAY off).
What makes you think they'll be 2-3 times more expensive than current HDTVs? Because it's new tech? Because it doesn't have a widespread manufacturing base?
If, according to popular rumor, the SED TVs are cheaper (or at least comparable) in price to current LCD/Plasmas, the manufacturers would have little benefit at pricing it so much higher than their direct competitor.
Current CRT TVs - $100-1000
Current Plasmas - $2000-5000
If you doubled plasma prices, you're saying the SED TVs would cost $4000-10,000. At the minimum you're looking at a $2000 difference.
People are still buying SDTVs by the truck-load. Why? Cause they're cheaper. Even with a $1000 (or easily less) difference, they're still buying big, fat, heavy, smaller-screened, lower quality CRTs because they're cheaper. Why then would people (with exception to the market share of those for whom price is irrelevant, a small percentage) pay $2000 more for a TV that gives them no size advantage, no weight advantage, with a bump in quality as the only benefit?
The answer is they wouldn't. Regardless of what the quality is, the SED TVs will be competing directly with current Plasma/LCD TVs. In order to win that market battle, the SEDs will have to be priced at a similar price-point (maybe slightly higher, but if production costs are the same, there's little incentive to do so). It would be commercial suicide to price these at the ridiculous levels you're talking about.
Remember - Every time you post something stupid on Engadget, a kitten dies. Be kind, post responsibly.
Well I would agree mostly with you however, Sony must believe that people will pay $1500 more for a better quality TV.
46" KDL-46S2010 - $2,999.99
46" KDL-46XBR3 - $4,599.99
(based on sonystyle)
Why wouldn't the average person want to pay more for a better contrast and response time?
In 2 years the current $4,600 TV's will cost $2,000 and the new 46" SED will cost $5,000+ (based on my opinon) because it is the newest and "Better" technology.
Ryan, you are quite misinformed. All CRTs were suseptible to burn-in. "Rear-Projection" CRTs are just big-screen projection TVs with CRT projectors. Technology advancement in the mid-to-late 90s, though, minimized this threat, and now most CRTs are resistant enough to burn-in that you shouldn't have to worry about it unless you keep your TV on a Cable News station with stationary objects on screen all day.
LCDs have never been suseptible to burn-in, you might be thinking of Plasma, for which burn-in is still an issue, but much less so than earlier Plasma sets.
SED Televisions, if I understand the technology correctly, will be just as suseptible as CRTs are, which is to say, not very.
I agree, these will have to compete price wise, or they will just sit on the shelves being admired by people like me that want, but can not afford. I've spent $2500 for a TV, but can't afford more than that.
Let's hope the price is competitive so I can have one too!
Sorry Ryan, but burn-in affects all CRT TVs... at least the current ones. In fact, since original PC monitors are CRT based, that was the reason for the invention of our beloved (and well named) "screen savers".
I'm at work, with a CRT monitor and unfortunately some poor fool who sat here before me left the log-in screen on constantly. This monitor will forever suffer from burn-in, showing a shadow of the "Windows 200 Pro" graphic.
I have no idea if the new SEDs will suffer from the same malady (someone smarter than me will have to analyze what little info we got about the new tech), but Brad's fear is not without merit. In fact, after my moment of disbelief and awe at the specs, that was my thought that brought me back to reality.
If, by chance, the SED tech does suffer from potential burn-in, let's hope they build in protections against it (like they have for a lot of plasmas out there that have the same potential downfall). Otherwise my next TV might be, once again, an LCD based set.
Or better a 27", 2048x1536, with 1:1 capability over DVI or HDMI, and the analogs VGA or component.
I bet you wont see these at reasonable prices until 2009~2010.
Even with the competition I can see these things demanding a premium.
Check out the scan line on the set to the left and behind him...
Wassup with that?
that's a really interesting scan line I must say but I really don't know much about that so I just want to say I noticed that too. I am not sure but it looks like there's one too on the main screen, the top part of the screen, but not like the one from behind.
I still want an SED as I saw it on CES'06 in person and it was the best that I've seen. Well that and the GE's; I think that was the brand name, it's been 9 months so I forgot :-). I so want to go again for 2007.
Mike and Sam seem right on target... but I still worry about their stipulations. "No, no burn-in issues (unless you leave the same image on the screen for MANY hours)."
I have a HTPC set-up right now, I specifically got a rear-projection LCD to protect against burn in, since I run WinXP constantly, otherwise there is strong potential for burn-in of the task bar.
I really think you're both right, but I'm crossing my fingers that the manufacturers of SED will take even more precautions against burn-in, just to be safe.
I would cry if I bought a beautiful SED TV, then one day started watching a movie and realized I had the ghost of a taskbar infecting every movie I watched. I would cry like a little girl, and I wouldn't be ashamed.
I'm curious why they are bringing SED technology out at the upper end of the display market first.
One would expect an initial appearance at the low end in cellphone and digital camera/camcorder displays that would be much easier to produce and take advantage of the technology's ability to work in daylight, where LCDs get washed out by direct sunlight.
Following that, in notebook displays, where the ability to operate in direct sunlight, along with a gorgeous display image would support a premium price point. Also, in desktop displays, where they could compete not only on the basis of image quality, but as calibrated displays providing the color integrity that LCDs do not have and that graphic arts professionals are accustomed to having in CRTs.
Last, one would expect to see a technology like this appear in wall-mounted HDTVs, because it IS expensive to produce and will offer the fabuluous imagery at a much lower profit margin than plasma or LCD displays.
But they're not doing it this way -- I wonder why?
Well, it *is* a CRT, or at least made up of millions of micro-sized ones, so I'd expect burn-in is part of its standard specification -- older CRT's were just more susceptible. And with all those micro-CRT's it's bound to burn more electricity than even a plasma.
Already three years behind schedule, it's fast becoming vaporware. Hopefully its specifications won't be superseded by the time it finally makes it to consumers' living rooms.
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/sed-tv.htm
Constantnormal: The current form factor of SED makes their TV panels a few centimeters thick. Also, at 1920x1080 resolution and 55" diagonal, those are some awfully huge pixels to be putting on miniature displays or even a notebook computer. Unless the technology can be further miniaturized and use less power, I don't see it being very scalable to the portable side of things.
OMG I've been waiting forever for SED. But I was pretty sure it was supposed to be cheaper than Plasma and LCD. Burn in isn't an issue on CRT unless you're dumb and it's a much bigger issue on Plasma.
My direct-view tube HDTV has an amazing picture compared to plasma or LCD but damn this thing is huge. The SED promises to give me as good a picture and be an inch or 2 thick.
While I'm all for SED technology, the size is just plain sad. Anything below 40" I think of adequate for a kitchen or a bathroom or great for a PC screen. Anything below 55" but greater than 40" is adequate for a small bedroom. Living rooms should be 65" minimum - 80" preferable. Let's face it, we've gone high def and now we've gone 1080p, and we did big screen for a while now. I'm hoping the second half of this decade we concentrate on BIGGER big screens. I saw the JVC 100" rear projection that actually is planned on being mass marketted,(as opposed to those 100-103" plasmas which seem to be just for trade shows and billionaires). I want to see 80" sub $5000 sets that look great by 2008 - anything else would just show we've been spending too much time watching TV and not enough time improving them.
I bought a 65" 1080i Mits about 3.5" years ago and it still does look as good as just about any TV rolling off the assemply line even today. It doesn't do 1080p which is a shame but DVDs look as good as any plasma or LCD as well as HDTV broadcasts. I'd love to move it to my bedroom and get an 80" SED to replace it.
The 1080p is a step in the right direction and SEDs (I saw them already) do look great but let's face it anything below 65" is a shame unless they are the low end option and the 80" screens are out by the end of 2008.
Not everyone has the viewing area needed for something like an 80" screen - there you're talking about sitting at the very minimum 16-18 feet away from the set. However, something like a 50" screen displaying DVD/HD/>480, will do just fine sitting as little as 12 feet away.
I do agree with you about the sub-40" sizes, they just started carrying 20"-37" LCD TVs in RadioShack stores now, and they're going crazy about it. Haha, yeah, sure, have fun spending just over a grand for a TV set that you have to sit 6 feet from and still look like garbage on anything but a pure HD feed.
Digg the story!
http://digg.com/hardware/First_Gen_SED_TVs_to_Feature_50_000_1_Contrast_and_1ms_Response_Time
Well I know my new LG lcd 20.1" monitor for my computer has 350 nits and its ungodly bright (enough so that I need to turn the brightness down to 75% or ill hurt my eyes). So I would assume 450 would be just dandy.
Then again, doing a quick google I can see lots of TVs having 500-600 nits and being described as ultra bright. On a bigger screen, I could see that much helping. I think 450 should still be enough tho. I want to know if these bad boys fall victim to burn in or not (im assuming they dont and they have invented the perfect display)
I want one!!!
Can we have an 'advance' Engadget competition? Kind of like the way Pan Am sold tickets to the moon in the early seventies?
Not that Engadget will go the way of Pan Am......
Lee
I am interested SED but 2008 is kind of far. Wanted to replace Sony with Toshiba LCD since xbox360 doesn't seem to match together nowdays.