Talk:Surface-conduction electron-emitter display

Foreign links
Are we supposed to be linking to non-english websites? → James Kidd ( contr / talk / email ) 02:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See External_links/workshop and Manual_of_Style_%28links%29
 * --195.137.93.171 18:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-native Resolution
This statement makes no sense to me: "The market for SEDs as monitors is unlikely, as SEDs have very poor picture quality outside of their native resolution."

How is that any different than LCD monitors? Doesn't the image quality of a non-native resolution for any fixed pixel technology have everything to do with the scaling/processing technology, and nothing to do with the display itself? And aren't LCD monitors exploding in the computer display market, even though they have this very problem?


 * How though? I thought they worked more like CRT... CRT does not have a problem with native/non-native resolutions. Why should SED? Surley it'd just be a mattter of setting the resolution for each of the emitters?

You (last poster) obviously haven't read about the working principles of the SEDs. SEDs have a separete electronic gun for every pixel/subpixel, meaning they have a native resolution just like LCDs. But, just like LCDs, they can be scaled to any resolution, with minor loss of image quality. Tani unit 01:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

With a CRT, the electrons from each RGB colour-channel could, in principle, be focussed to smaller or larger spots than the phosphor dots, but the dots and mask-hole sizes are matched, so doubt if this has been done commercially. There isn't a 'focus' pin on a VGA connector ! I think CRTs are not really different from LCDs in the sub-R+G+B-dot addressing state. Now ClearType sub-pixel addressing is another matter - it should give LCDs an advantage at native resolution, although some people prefer CRTs with ClearType, too ! --195.137.93.171 18:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a question which this article doesn't answer: Do SED pixels have to be dithered, or can the element statically display any level of brightness, while its neighbors are displaying completely different levels of brightness? One disadvantage plasma displays have over CRTs is that the plasma pixel can only be on or off. This means that the intermediate intensities are dithered, and there can be artifacts when the viewer's eye tracks a moving object that has to be dithered. DLP pixels also have this limitation, because the micro-mirrors can only reflect or not reflect the lamp onto the screen.

I read of a stadium-sized display which used individual CRT's as pixels. I think editting the article to make a comparison between SED and this type of stadium display would improve the article. I don't know enough about the SED to get that right though.


 * Electrons crossing a nano-gap at 10 volts probably won't give a great deal of stable control over the current. 8 bits = 256 levels of brightness per pixel is the usual standard. The control mechanism is Quantum tunnelling which is very non-linear so they may well use Pulse-width modulation. --195.137.93.171 19:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Light Guns
JR: One of the last sentences also says something about light guns. I don't think the phosphor coating has anything to do with the possibility of using light guns in connection with the display.

--128.255.179.98 05:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Electron Dynamics
This sentence is very confusing: "When the electrons cross electric poles across the thin slit, some are scattered at the receiving pole and are accelerated toward the display surface by a large voltage..." --128.255.179.98 05:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the 'Technology' section should be merged with the intro ? Or just link to Electron gun instead? Big difference is that CRT uses Thermionic emission - the electrons 'boil off' a heated filament, whereas SED might be emitting from a cold surface. FEDs emit due to a high electric field around points. It seems SEDs use a different mechanism - move that up from 2nd External Link "Canon Technology SED showcase" to be another Reference?. Might be best not to speculate ? --195.137.93.171 19:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What year did Canon begin SED research?
The "Technology" section says "The technology has been in development since 1987".

Just below this, the "History" section says "Canon began SED research in 1986".

Can anyone clear this up? I don't want to correct these to "in the late 1980's". Also, while I'm here, surely giving specifications for one demoed display as advantages for the whole technology is a little incongruous? The specs can stay, but generalisations about the whole technology can't be made on one display.

hinges 15:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Drawbacks
There was a drawback listed, "May be expensive when first released in 2007". This seemed not unreasonable but speculative, so I replaced it with, "Pricing is unknown although, "Canon CEO Fujio Mitarai says he wants to offer the screens for about the same price as LCD and plasma TVs of comparable size."" which is more factual and informative. BillMcGonigle 14:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad grammar?
Perhaps this is lacking in flow:

"Not enough information about technology. May be expensive when first released in 2007."

Maybe that should be elaborated on, as in "There is not much information available about this technology." And even with that statement, not much information about a technology is certainly not a disadvantage, in respect to a reason not to use it over other technologies. Maybe it is a disadvantage for wikipedians, but if waiting for new display technology and choosing something, if someone told me I shouldn't go for a technology because the public isn't in the know, I'd look at them funny.

There has to be info. out there, there is an article in the Nov 2006 issue of IEEE Spectrum making mention of details of this technology. 68.81.198.36 02:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC) anon

Carbon nanotubes
The Nano-Proprietary Lawsuit section mentions carbon nanotubes. Does this display type use carbon nanotubes? Shouldn't that be stated in the description? Or somewhere? The Technology section, for example? 81.6.242.110 14:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes
" Modern SEDs add another step that greatly eases production. The pads are deposited with a much larger gap between them, as much as 50 nm "  : 50nm sounds like a mistake. More realistic would be 50um. Since I don't know this piece of data, I leave it uncorrected in the main text and just flag it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.165.203 (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

LCD Comparison
I don't like that the comparison section is so focused on the LCD display when the SED (and FED) display are more related to the Plasma display (PDP) that is not even mentioned in this section. It is difficult to comprehend the practical differences between Plasma and SED (such as color gamut, lifespan etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.129.26 (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence
Please, the very first sentence of this article really needs to be reworked:

"A surface-conduction electron-emitter display (SED) is a display technology which has been developing various flat panel displays by a number of companies as a electronic visual displays."

The display technology has been developing displays? Technology can't create things by its self. How about this?

"A surface-conduction electron-emitter display (SED) is a display technology which has been developed as flat panel displays by a number of companies."

It's not great but it's better. ...I don't know how to sign this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.65.119 (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this really to be counted as emerging technology anymore?
This technology appears to have quietly folded. Should it really be listed on the template of emergent technology? As a sidenote, a lot of other "Emergent Technology" appears to have equally failed. 73.154.165.60 (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Surface-conduction electron-emitter display. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://displaydaily.com/2009/04/27/nab-2009-the-season-of-their-discontent/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616183341/http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2007AUG/PDF/EEOL_2007AUG16_OPT_TA.pdf to http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2007AUG/PDF/EEOL_2007AUG16_OPT_TA.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

An epilogue is missing - quantum dots as light emitters
the SED display technology could have been great, but current quantum dots or RGB backlight provide equivalent, if not better quality, making the business case for SED dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.11.27 (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This isn't a book, there are not epilogues. Unless a direct connection can be assigned between the two technologies, such a remark would be baseless speculation. The conclusion is that SEDs are a technology that failed to emerge. 2601:540:C700:42DF:76C8:5F43:53F1:5C95 (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)