Slashdot Mirror
Motorola Debuts Nano-Emissive Flat Screen
brain1 writes "PhysOrg is reporting that Motorola has developed a 5" flat-screen prototype display that uses carbon nanotubes. The display appears to promise lower costs for a full 40" HDTV screen bringing the price down to $400. The technology uses standard color TV phosphors, has a response time equaling CRTs', all in a package 1/8" thick. The display characteristics meet or exceed CRTs', such as fast response time, wide viewing angle, and wide operation temperature. All these are areas that LCDs are weak in. Is this the breakthrough we needed to finally make HDTV and flat-panel computer displays *really* affordable?"
This technology would be decent if it addresses the aforementioned problems, but isn't much of an improvement if it looks blotchy (what is this called, banding?) where colors are similar hue.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Looks like it's going to be a race to the finish line on who can bring us the cheapest HDTV and Flat panel technology. I read an article in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend which had quotes from the chief engineer of displays at Sony where he was talking about a break through processing system they are working on which they expect will drop the price by screen as much as 45%. What they weren't sure of is when it will be ready to roll out.
The company I work for (DuPont) is working on a different avenue. We're persusing OLEDs to replace plasma and LCDs. We'll see how things go.
Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
Sure, it sounds great. And there's even a working prototype and cost estimate for a 40" model. But how far off is that possibility? No mention in the article.
I'd still say its a bit high to be considered the "low cost necessary to bring HDTV to the masses."
I for could probably see myself paying that much for it, as would a large amount of geeks and/or yuppies. However, I'd say for most people, its not worth paying $400 dollars for a TV of any size or picture quality. Especially when you consider for all intensive purposes, there isn't much on teevee worth watching in HDTV.
Games and DVDs on the other hand...
They'll keep improving this stuff until we're all wearing XHDTV contacts or retinal implants or having our video directly beamed to the pleasure center ^W^W visual cortex.
But you are correct that it will be fascinating to see if the technology stabilizes on a flat-screen format.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
This will *NOT* be a Flat CRT. Which does it's magic with the use of a flyback transformer, and a shadowmask. When done really well with good content you get an image where you cannot distinguish the individual pixels.
This will have similar issues that CRT's have. It will have visible SDE and generally will not have good close-up performance characteristics compared to CRT or LCD.
I do welcome our 400 dollar pricetags, but it looks like it will be a direct race with Plasma which has already dramatically improved the phosphor half-life (to that of as good or better than CRT's), reduced and removed burn-in, and good brightness and viewing angles. LCD's have one last gasp with Lumileds which look to finally improve brightness and color so that TV doesn't look like watching a flourescent tube. I think you will see 42" 16x9 for $1000 next year. I think Plasma wins. FED are going to be too far behind the engineering curves.
But I'm not.
Every new display technology in the last 10 years either:
1. Is so astonishingly far from making it to market that I'll likely be blind before it gets there. (OLED, except for cell phones and the like)
2. Is touted as a quality, affordable solution, then is introduced only at the mid-high end (DLP, I'm looking at you)
3. Is never heard from again. (too many examples to list.)
I want something that's thinner and lighter than a CRT, without plasma burn-in, doesn't suffer from LCD's horrible color gamut, is sharper and cheaper than DLP, and lasts longer than OLED.
Bleh, maybe when I'm dead.
m-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
A 40" NED panel manufacturing cost at $400 is nothing special. Add in the electronics, packaging, G&A, margins, distribution costs and so on and I bet you are looking at $2000 or more. That is in the same ballpark as what a 40" microdisplay HDTV costs today. It's more than what a 50" CRT RPTV costs.
Maybe the picture quality will be good, but so are current CRT RPTV's.
Another noticeable thing in the article was that LCD electronics are low cost, but what about low power?
If I can get a 40 inch HDTV screen that uses as much energy as a lightbulb, it has a major impact both on heat and power usage.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
But you can't realistically hang a CRT RPTV on the wall, viewing angles still suck, and displays are still dim. They also have major alignment issues. Or am I missing something???
Physorg in general eats a whole lot of ass. I have lost count of how many times I've read a really good paper with some pretty groundbreaking results, then seen the results of said paper posted as an article on physorg without ever REFERENCING the original source. Physorg is teh suck.
LCD was meant to be this great thing. It ended up being crap. For anything serious it just isn't that good. It
Will it consume less power? Generate less heat? Will it have better update times? And, will the colours look less washed out?
If at least 3/4 of this are not solved when this displays will become commercially available, i'm sticking with the mature CRT.
Toshiba will start manufacturing SED TV soon. It's another flat screen technology that is less than LCD so let the competition begin. I can't stand plasma .Way overpriced.