So would that be twice as energy efficient- same power, more/better image for it or consuming half the power for the same image?

It's the one with the nit-picking apparatus in the pocket.

I am loving that jacket...

.. is that nice Asian gentleman wearing a shiny tinfoil coat?

Are those two tellies emitting some kind of toxic alien radiation that'd make his lungs look like burnt broccoli?

Would be to use a single electron source. This would have to be placed further behind the screen for obvious reasons, but an alternating electric field could be used to make the beam scan the screen which would be coated with the same phosphor pixels. I should patent it :P

so is this better than OLED or what? those 11inch sets from Sony looked pretty special i must say, although weren't they about £200 each?

I think you'll find the reason why SED isn't on the shelves at the moment is actually down to Applied Nanotech holding the patent to the Carbon Nanotubes and them being arsey about the fact that Canon licenced it to Toshiba, which it didn't like.

It even forced Canon to buy Toshiba out of the Licencing agreement and took them to court to try to get even more money out of them.

But they've sufficiently angered Canon enough for Canon to put a hold on SED production for the medium to long term.

http://www.appliednanotech.net/ is their website.

Pioneer are not stopping plasma production. They are outsourcing the panel manufacturing to Panasonic.

Pioneer Kuros are the sweetest displays ever. Why would they stop making them? Its just a dam shame no-one (with a normal job!) can afford them.

I must say that is one dam fine coat hes wearing.

:wq

...I want that jacket.

FED has been a "Real Soon Now" technology for the last 10 or 15 years. The main obstacle to its commercial introduction has been the degradation of the field emitters (originally microscopic tungsten spikes) over time. If carbon nanotubes are a solution to this problem, FEDs could be a serious competitor to other display technologies.

How could an FED produce a crisper image than any other type of single pixel addressable display? A 1920x1080 picture is a 1920x1080 picture whichever pixel-perfect method you use to display it. More contrast - yes; crisper picture - nope.

@Chris

With a single source it might work for monochrome displays, you'd need to deflect and focus it on the surface. That's a non-trivial thing to get right. You'd need 3 sources for colour. And although it seems easy to use that with special wires or plates with holes, it's all very non-trivial. There have been companies trying that, but most failed.

Please no 60" inch, at least not only. That's just _far_ to large for HDTV. Keep it at 26" and smaller, and it will be a success.

Off the top of my head I would guess that FEDs would be crisper than LCDs because there would be no backlight bleed since each pixel is individually lit.

FEDs would also beat LCDs on viewing angle, I imagine, although that's not mentioned.

Fair point, but since the response time is faster and the phosphor could be operated at shorter duty cycle, the sharpness for *moving* images certainly could beat LCD.

A second consideration is that it is well-known in display and imaging circles that more contrast (blacker blacks) greatly enhances the *perceived* sharpness.

According to the graphic there is an AGAR film on the surface of the LCD panel. Is this another doomed attempt to bring culture to television?

Phosphor? Vacuum? Electrons?

Is the CRT coming back into fashion?

Dead vulture, because CRT is that. And so is Sony.

Its a good decision from Sony not to focus only to OLED. FED-TV can be a real very interesting technology in the future. Check out this site about future Flat-Tv technologies:

http://www.oled-display.info

What? 26" is far too SMALL to see the benefits of HDTV (especially Full HD 1080p) at any 'normal' TV viewing distance. You'd need to sit at about computer monitor viewing distance for your eyes (unless you are Superman) to be able to resolve the detail. That is why Full HD TVs generally only start at 37" and upwards. In a large living room, you might quite realistically be sitting 10-12 feet from the screen, and a 60" would be perfect at that distance for watching Full HD content.

Obviously 60" will be a relative niche market, but if they can build screens at that size, they will be able to build at the more mainstream 32-40" sizes.