Ah, SED. In answer, yes and no. SED monitors do incoprorate good aspects of both LCDs and CRTs, but they also incorporate bad aspects found in both, as well.Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Hey Ar-Adunakhor, what about SED monitors? Supposedly they will cost about the same as LCD's and combine all the advantages of LCD's and CRT's with none of the disadvantages of either. I'm still using the same 19" Dell CRT that I've been using for 7 years now, and it's still fantastic. I thought about upgrading to LCD many times, but decided each time that the increase in portability wasn't worth the tradeoffs. SED seems like the way to go, but it also seems too good to be true. Is it a load of BS, or something we should be excited about?
You see, to understand the SED (Surface Conduction Electron Emitter Displays, for those of you wondering) you have to understand how both LCDs and CRTs work, as they are both incorporated into this "new" screen type. I use new in quotes there due to the fact it is not a new technology at all, merely a reiteration of what we already have, packaged differently and based on different principles. The crux of the explanation is this: CRTs contribute the output ability and LCDs contribute the output method.
First, let's review the CRT bloodline of this bastard child. How do SEDs work? To understand that, you must first understand how CRTs work. In CRTs a cathode/anode array fires electrons at phosphors, (which reside at the front of the monitor) causing them to enter an excited state and discharge the energy they recieved in the form of light. The SED works in exactly the same way, but with a difference in the nature of the electron distributor. SEDs use long sheets of "electron emitters" (Toshiba and Canon don't seem to have clarified the exact electronics package used) which are packaged into "cells" which act as pixels. The fact that it continues on in the tradition of perception-interrupt display ensures that it will still have the "flicker" problem, much as the CRTs do.
But what is inherited from the LCD side? Well, the method of display, and hence the size. While these electron emitters light phosphors on the screen in the same way a CRT does, the fact that the emitters themselves are packaged with those phosphors in a "pixel-cell" will probably bring over the resolution problems inherent in LCDs.
Finally, combining these two technologies could create a problem that has not been seen in *either* of the SED's sires. The fact it uses CRT electron-phosphor technology renders it suceptable to deviations and warping/blurring in the image. On CRTs, those deviations would be compensated for through the large number of adjustments that can be performed on the C/A Ray-gun. The problem comes when you take into account the fact that there is no longer a gun, but rather tens of thousands of electron emitters, each hitting a different "mini-screen". It is likely they will attempt to chain all the emitters together and put an adjustment utility on the monitor, however this will introduce many more complications than you will have with a single emitter.
Now, for the benefits of SEDs. Using so many individual electron emitters placed so close to the screen, one could theoretically achieve far greater bringtness and contrast ratios than can currently be seen on either CRTs or LCDs. The only problem with this is that the phosphors themselves can "burn out" or build up a repulsing charge that effectively repels the electrons, causing your screen to die. The same could be said of the higher resolutions that could be had with such a system. Of course, other benefits would be size and picture clarity, but what good is a picture if it warps and burns out quickly?
So, in answer to your "BS or get excited?" question: It's not the second coming of Christ. What you are currently hearing from the magazines and net is just the standard monolithic explosion of semen that companies buy when they are about to release a new product. (From ads, plants, or buying/exclusiveing reviewers, it makes no matter.) If they can work out some of the problems, it has potential... but cautiously optimismtic would be a good default stance for now.
In summary: Don't throw away your CRT, yet.
