<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xml:lang="en-US" xmlns:max="http://www.memezone.com/memiki/atom/extension" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <link href="http://www.eco-villages.org/pages/atom/33" rel="self" type="application/atom+xml"/>
  <id>urn:edouard:Science-Technology:Audio-and-Video</id>
  <title>Audio and Video</title>
  <updated>2010-07-16T16:18:40Z</updated>
  <entry>
    <id>urn:edouard:science-technology:audio-and-video:page-33</id>
    <title>Audio and Video</title>
    <author>
      <name>edouard</name>
    </author>
    <published>2007-04-09T17:49:25Z</published>
    <updated>2010-07-16T16:18:40Z</updated>
    <link href="http://www.eco-villages.org/pages/view/33" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<h1>Stirring audio/video news/topics and links</h1>      </div>
    </content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>urn:edouard:science-technology:audio-and-video:note-1419</id>
    <title>Display Myths</title>
    <author>
      <name>edouard</name>
    </author>
    <published>2010-05-19T23:16:21Z</published>
    <updated>2010-05-20T11:51:44Z</updated>
    <link href="http://www.eco-villages.org/notes/view/1419" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<p><strong>A must read article</strong> from <a href="http://www.maximumpc.com">www.maximumpc.com</a> !</p>


	<p><a href="http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/display_myths_shattered"><strong>Display Myths Shattered: How Monitor &#38; <span class="caps">HDTV</span> Companies Cook Their Specs</strong></a></p>


	<p><img src="http://jplalonde.net/MRC/mire_tv2.jpg" alt="" /></p>


	<h2>Response Times: How Fast Is Fast Enough?</h2>


<blockquote>
	<p><strong>don’t pay much attention to a [LCD] manufacturer’s response time specs because they are so different from the real response time and motion blur</strong> that we have demonstrated here.</p>

</blockquote>




	<p><span class="caps">LCD</span> published &#8220;Rise and Fall&#8221; (from black to white to black again) response time are much better than more subtle, &#8220;real life&#8221; response time (e.g. &#8220;gray to gray&#8221;)...</p>


<blockquote>
	<p>The underlying reason why higher refresh rates don’t mitigate blurring is that <strong>the true pixel response times</strong> [40 to 65ms] <strong>of</strong> [LCD] <strong>displays are considerably longer than the 60Hz</strong> [= 16ms cycle] <strong>video frame rate</strong>, so it doesn’t matter whether the screen refresh rate is 60Hz or 120Hz, or whether the <span class="caps">LED</span> backlights are strobed off during the frame updating. Similarly, adjusting <strong>the electronic processing enhancements</strong> that some models offer—controls that are supposed to reduce motion blur—only served to <strong>introduce objectionable contours, edges, and other artifacts onto moving objects without reducing the overall motion blur.</strong></p>

</blockquote>




	<p>Their &#8220;Motion Blur: Visual Proof&#8221; image is very impressive.</p>


<em>my traduction:</em>
	<ul>
	<li>(with <span class="caps">LED</span> backlight or not) <span class="caps">LCD</span> smears, <span class="caps">LCD</span> has a &#8220;video look&#8221; (for films), <strong><span class="caps">LCD</span> is crap</strong>! </li>
		<li><strong>Frame interpolation &#38; processing is crap</strong> (turn it off: is non curative on <span class="caps">LCD</span>, useless on plasma as they just don&#8217;t have any smearing with their instantaneous response time!)</li>
	</ul>


	<p><em>n.b.</em> the <a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090506191951AAYnLWy">600Hz refresh rates</a> of new Panasonic plasma is just nonsense, to combat high <span class="caps">LCD</span> framerate claims with even more inflation; that&#8217;s sad (lies/stupidity race)! The image is still displayed at 60Hz but in 10 sub-fields! (10&#215;60 = 600!)... Plasmas do <span class="caps">NOT</span> need &gt;60Hz refresh rates to compensate for motion artifacts because they do not produce these motion artifacts!</p>


	<h2>Contrast Ratio, Ad Absurdum</h2>


	<p>Everybody should know that the maximum displayable real/natural contrast (in a real image) is not equal to the screen dynamic range (intensity-ratio between an all black vs all white image) also called Full On/Off contrast! But now manufacturers (especially for <span class="caps">LCD</span>) use &#8220;dynamic contrast&#8221; or even just &#8220;contrast instead&#8221; of &#8220;dynamic range&#8221;, inflating numbers&#8230;</p>


<blockquote>
	<p><strong>Contrast-ratio specs are tremendously inflated.</strong> For the best LCDs, scientifically measured contrast ratios are actually between 1,500 and 2,000. But <strong>manufacturers almost never publish real contrast ratios anymore.</strong></p>

</blockquote>




<blockquote>
	<p>In their quest to quote ever-larger numbers, some manufacturers invented a completely meaningless spec called “dynamic contrast ratio&#8221; ... (Sometimes they don’t even bother mentioning the “dynamic” part). Sadly, all manufacturers are now forced to play this game, as consumers wouldn’t be interested in monitors and TVs that tout the true values. <strong>Meaningless contrast-ratio specs help substandard manufacturers</strong> by making their displays appear to be just as good as those from the best manufacturers, or even better, because the biggest liar wins.</p>

</blockquote>




	<p>see <a href="http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/contrast-ratio.html">The Contrast Ratio Game (www.practical-home-theater-guide.com)</a></p>


	<h2>Color Gamut or Marketing Gambit?</h2>


<blockquote>
	<p>Color gamut, which is the range of colors that a display can produce, is undoubtedly the most misunderstood and exploited spec</p>

</blockquote>




<blockquote>
	<p><strong>The color gamut that you want</strong> ... <strong>is the same color gamut that was used when the content you’re viewing was created</strong>. If a different gamut is employed, you’ll see different colors than you’re supposed to see.</p>

</blockquote>




<blockquote>
	<p>Virtually <strong>all consumer content is created using industry standards</strong> that specify the exact color gamut to be used. For computers and digital cameras it’s <strong>sRGB</strong>. For digital HDTVs, it’s called <strong><span class="caps">ITU</span>-R BT.709</strong> (often referred to as Rec.709). Fortunately, both of these standards specify the same exact gamut.</p>

</blockquote>




<blockquote>
	<p>Indeed,  <strong>displays claiming more than 100 percent of the standard color gamut simply can’t show colors that aren’t in the original source image</strong>. Expanded gamuts are just gimmicks that make consumers think they’re getting something better.</p>

</blockquote>




	<h2>Bit-Depth Misconceptions</h2>


<blockquote>
	<p>First, remember that essentially all consumer content is 24-bit color. Thus, the <strong>source images have only 16.8 million colors</strong>, and <strong>the display can’t “invent” intensities and color combinations that don’t exist in the original.</strong></p>

</blockquote>




	<p><em>n.b.</em> <a href="http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/JenniferLeong.shtml">Number of Colors Distinguishable by the Human Eye</a> (at a fixed &#8220;aperture&#8221;): estimated between 100000 to 10 million! 24 bit encoding is way enough for us!</p>


	<p>etc&#8230;</p>


	<p>p.s. a little tear for <a href="#n293"><span class="caps">SED</span></a> ?</p>      </div>
    </content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>urn:edouard:science-technology:audio-and-video:note-1402</id>
    <title>iPod as a top performing digital source</title>
    <author>
      <name>edouard</name>
    </author>
    <published>2010-03-12T15:21:32Z</published>
    <updated>2010-04-19T17:20:55Z</updated>
    <link href="http://www.eco-villages.org/notes/view/1402" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<p><strong>Bypassing the iPod cheap analog to digital audio circuitry is needed in order to get a good sound</strong>... Most iPod docks just use the iPod crappy analogic output signal (even expensive ones like the Krell that are just swindles!).</p>


	<p>For what I&#8217;m avare of, now <strong>there are</strong> only 2 <strong>iPod docks that can directly extract iPod digital signal</strong> (without hack/modification of the iPod itself!):</p>


	<p>n.b. Yes the ipod can output in digital! it&#8217;s just that the signal will only go through a device with an apple authorization chip?/system (~like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content_Protection"><span class="caps">HDCP</span></a> with video)</p>


	<p><a href="http://www.wadia.com/products/transports/170i/">Wadia Digital 170iTransport</a><br /><a href="http://www.eu.onkyo.com/products/ND-S1.html">Onkyo ND-S1</a></p>


	<p><img src="http://www.cnet.co.uk/i/c/blg/cat/hometheatre/onkyo_digital_dock.jpg" alt="" /><br /><em>Onkyo ND-S1</em></p>


	<p>Then hook the dock digital output (no need for fancy cables, as the digital information is resistant to some signal distortion&#8230;) to a dedicated good quality analog to digital converter (no need to go &#8220;uber-audiophile&#8221;, as the main internal components are always not that expensive chips by companies like Texas Instruments!):</p>


	<p>e.g.<br /><a href="http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/summary.php?PID=320">Cambridge Audio DacMagic</a><br /><a href="http://www.firestone-audio.eu/shop/products/allproductslisted/fubar4plus.php">Firestone Audio Fubar4-Plus</a><br /><a href="http://www.audio-visual-factory.ch/recherche.php/idelement/benchmark_dac1_453.html">Benchmark <span class="caps">DAC1</span></a></p>


	<p><img src="http://www.tone.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Dac-magic.jpg" alt="" /><br /><em>Cambridge Audio DacMagic</em></p>


	<p>Then hook the <span class="caps">DAC</span> analog output to your (pre)amplifier with good cinch cables (as the analog signal directly represents the sound, unlike when encoded digitally, the information is therefore sensitive to signal distortion/loss!).</p>


	<p>With this setting as there are no bit loss (unlike with a CD where vibrations, physical disc damage can result in data loss) + with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless">Apple Lossless</a> files, iPod represents a bit-perfect digital source better than any CD player&#8230; Too bad <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_Store">iTune store</a> doesn&#8217;t sell music in Apple Lossless format (but <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding"><span class="caps">AAC</span></a> at 128 &#8211; 256kbps [sampled at 44.1 kHz to 192 kHz on 16 or 24bits] ~<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_%28data_compression%29">hi-fi transparent</a>)...</p>


	<p>n.b. without an ipod, another good, small, cool source: <a href="http://www.logitechsqueezebox.com/products/squeezebox-touch.html">Logitech Squeezebox Touch</a><br />(has a digital output, no need for a pricey dock!)</p>      </div>
    </content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>urn:edouard:science-technology:audio-and-video:note-1257</id>
    <title>Best HD TVs?</title>
    <author>
      <name>edouard</name>
    </author>
    <published>2008-05-30T14:54:20Z</published>
    <updated>2010-05-18T11:15:54Z</updated>
    <link href="http://www.eco-villages.org/notes/view/1257" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<h2>Technology</h2>


	<p>Obviously <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_LED"><span class="caps">OLED</span></a> will be great, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display"><span class="caps">SED</span></a> &#8217;s dead (kind of), what&#8217;s available now for large and flat screens: <span class="caps">LCD</span> (LED backlit or not) or Plasma.<br />LCDs (especially the fanciest newest ones) have this ugly &#8220;hand held video like&#8221; look / <a href="http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/08/12/help-key-why-hd-video-looks-weird/">soap opera effect</a> that makes a great movie (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24p">24p</a> dvd or bluray) looks like a &#8220;love boat&#8221; episode! (it&#8217;s even funny: some people think it&#8217;s the HD effect/ feel / &#8220;too real&#8221;! no, it&#8217;s not: it&#8217;s just ugly. turning off frame interpolation with 120/240Hz is not enough, the gamma also looks bad, no brightness details etc&#8230;) which leave them good only for watching tv or playing games. Therefore to watch movies the only available decent screen <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_display_technology">display technology</a> is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_display">plama</a> with deep blacks and (real) high micro-contrast; any sane videophile will chose plasma over lcd.</p>


	<h2>Best Plasmas: ... used to be Pionneer Kuro Plasma</h2>


	<p><a href="http://www.hometheatermag.com/plasmadisplays/907kuro/index.html">review at hometheatermag.com</a></p>


	<p><img src="http://www.hometheatermag.com/images/archivesart/907kuro1.jpg" alt="" /></p>


<blockquote>
	<p>It&#8217;s not just the fact that the <span class="caps">PRO</span>-110FD creates a beautiful image. It&#8217;s that the image it creates is such a step above every other flat panel on the market that it is not even comparable.</p>

</blockquote>




	<p><a href="http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/05/07/second-generation-pioneer-kuro-unveiled-5x-deeper-black-levels/">Second-generation Pioneer <span class="caps">KURO</span></a></p>


<blockquote>
	<p>The 2008 <span class="caps">KURO</span> family will posses black levels &#8220;five times deeper than the previous <span class="caps">KURO</span></p>

</blockquote>




<blockquote>
	<p>You can count on the June-bound models checking in at just 3.7-inches thick, sporting 1080p panels alone (no 720p), coming in 50- ($4,000) / 60-inch ($5,500) sizes</p>

</blockquote>




	<p><em>Note</em>: Panasonic plasma seem to get good review too:<br /><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/02/panasonics-th-50pz700u-plasma-becomes-best-ever-tested/">Panasonic TH-50PZ700U</a></p>


	<p><a href="http://hdguru.com/panasonic-th-50pz850u-exclusive-hd-guru%E2%84%A2-first-review/249/">Panasonic <strong>TH-50PZ850U</strong> against kuro</a></p>


<blockquote>
	<p>Basically, while Kuro is blacker (courtesy of its screen&#8217;s darker tint) and brighter, Panny&#8217;s color reproduction is much deeper, you get better dark detail, more accurate gamma, it uses 30 percent less power, <span class="caps">AND</span> it&#8217;s cheaper ($3500 to $4600).</p>

</blockquote>




	<p>Anyway panasonic will be producing future Kuro panels!...<br /><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/24/pioneer-panasonic-reach-basic-agreement-on-kuro-production-fir/">Pioneer &#8211; Panasonic agreement</a></p>


	<p>2009 update: Kuros are dead!<br />latest panasonic seems to be &#8220;almost&#8221; as good</p>


	<h2>2009 best</h2>


	<p><a href="http://hdguru.com/the-new-king-of-hdtv-displays-panasonics-tc-p54v10-reviewed/458/">new king of hdtv <strong><span class="caps">P54V10</span></strong></a><br />Deep blacks, shadow details, color accuracy (with <span class="caps">THX</span> mode) etc&#8230; <br />Lighter (33kg!) than old plasmas and ~thin (3.3 inches, 2 on top), more power efficient than older plasmas (280w!).</p>


	<p><img src="http://hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/tc-54pv10_415.jpg" alt="" /></p>


	<p><em>(I bought a TX-P50V10E dec 2009)</em></p>


	<h2>2010</h2>


	<p><strong>Panasonic</strong> (upper models): 5000000:1 dynamic range = <a href="http://hd.engadget.com/2010/01/11/panasonics-2010-plasma-line-has-much-better-black-levels/">better black levels</a><br />+ 3D for VT models (nice if it were without glasses!)</p>


	<p><a href="http://hdguru.com/panasonic-tc-p50vt20-3d-hdtv-hd-guru-exclusive-first-review/1391/"><span class="caps">P50VT20</span> at hdguru</a></p>


<blockquote>
	<p>The improved scan and phosphors along with the deep blacks and accurate color provided excellent image reproduction and fine shadow detail. These improvements add up to amazing overall images free of the “video look” associated with 120 and 240 Hz <span class="caps">LED</span> LCDs.</p>

</blockquote>




	<p><a href="http://www.panasonic.ch/fr/Produits/Produits+Grand+Public/T%E9l%E9viseurs+%E9cran+plat/Pr%E9sentation+VIERA/T%E9l%E9viseurs+VIERA+Plasma/Diagonale+110+-+130+cm/001009001001002/TX-P50V20E/description.html">2D model TX-P50V20E (Switzerland)</a></p>      </div>
    </content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>urn:edouard:science-technology:audio-and-video:note-1148</id>
    <title>360 degree 3D display</title>
    <author>
      <name>edouard</name>
    </author>
    <published>2007-08-31T16:34:02Z</published>
    <updated>2010-03-12T11:06:54Z</updated>
    <link href="http://www.eco-villages.org/notes/view/1148" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<p>Researchers at <span class="caps">USC</span> have taken another step towards that holiest of sci-fi dreams: the <strong>3D &#8220;holographic&#8221; display</strong>.</p>


	<p><img src="http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/08/3d-display.jpg" alt="" /></p>


	<p>The team&#8217;s device &#8211; using a spinning mirror (dangerous?) &#8211; <strong>can project a three-dimensional image that can be viewed from 360 degrees, regardless of the viewer&#8217;s height and distance</strong>.</p>


	<h4>video:</h4>


<object height="350" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FF1vFTQOWN4"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FF1vFTQOWN4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></object>

	<p><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/31/researchers-develop-a-360-degree-holographic-display/">engadget link</a><br /><a href="http://www.core77.com/blog/object_culture/360_degree_light_field_display_7314.asp">core77 link</a></p>      </div>
    </content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>urn:edouard:science-technology:audio-and-video:note-1149</id>
    <title>Yamaha's "Tenori-On" grid sequencer</title>
    <author>
      <name>edouard</name>
    </author>
    <published>2007-08-31T23:33:29Z</published>
    <updated>2010-07-16T16:18:40Z</updated>
    <link href="http://www.eco-villages.org/notes/view/1149" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<p>A grid of <span class="caps">LED</span>-lit rubber buttons that lets you create musical loops and melodies.</p>


<object height="350" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_SGwDhKTrwU"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_SGwDhKTrwU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></object>

	<p><a href="http://www.global.yamaha.com/tenori-on/">product page</a></p>


<blockquote>
	<p><em>It is with great pleasure that we announce that sales of <span class="caps">TENORI</span>-ON will begin in the U.K. this September (2007), as a test-marketing venture.</em></p>

</blockquote>




	<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJSIkb_gOys">another video</a><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRXEx-uQR7E">another video; 8min demo</a></p>


	<p><strong>October 2007</strong>:<br /><a href="http://musicthing.blogspot.com/2007/10/yamaha-tenori-on-review-many-good.html">musicthing review</a></p>


	<p><strong>2010</strong></p>


	<p>on iPad: <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/aurora-sound-studio-hd/id375109647?mt=8">Aurora Sound Studio HD</a>, iPhone <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/aurora-sound-studio/id370131857?mt=8;">Aurora Sound Studio</a> great Tenori-On (like) apps</p>      </div>
    </content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>urn:edouard:science-technology:audio-and-video:note-294</id>
    <title>Laser Turnable</title>
    <author>
      <name>edouard</name>
    </author>
    <published>2007-04-09T17:49:25Z</published>
    <updated>2007-10-02T20:35:41Z</updated>
    <link href="http://www.eco-villages.org/notes/view/294" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<p>seen on <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/elp-laser-turnable-174989.php">gizmodo</a></p>


	<p>This damned expensive gadget makes the passion for vinyl a little easier and more modern, to boot. The <span class="caps">ELP</span> Laser Turntable is essentially that. Rather than dealing with the hassle of placing the needle on the record, just pop the baby in and let the lasers do all of the work for you.</p>


	<p><img src="http://gizmodo.com/images/2006/05/laserturntable.jpg" alt="" /><br /><em>too bad it&#8217;s a little bit too expensive (15000$)! especially if you never listen to LPs&#8230;</em></p>      </div>
    </content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>urn:edouard:science-technology:audio-and-video:note-295</id>
    <title>Display Technologies</title>
    <author>
      <name>edouard</name>
    </author>
    <published>2007-04-09T17:49:25Z</published>
    <updated>2010-05-19T23:05:05Z</updated>
    <link href="http://www.eco-villages.org/notes/view/295" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<p><strong>Plama</strong> vs <strong><span class="caps">LCD</span></strong> vs <strong><span class="caps">DLP</span></strong> Rear Projection vs <span class="caps">CRT</span>.<br /><strong>In-depth comparison</strong> between these technologies to analyze their relative strengths and weaknesses. Old (12.2004) but still valid; a must read.</p>


	<p><img src="http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/9/0,1425,i=92933,00.jpg" alt="" /></p>


	<p><a href="http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1752680,00.asp">extremetech article</a></p>      </div>
    </content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>urn:edouard:science-technology:audio-and-video:note-296</id>
    <title>Progressive Scan DVD - Film-to-DVD; what can go wrong</title>
    <author>
      <name>edouard</name>
    </author>
    <published>2007-04-09T17:49:25Z</published>
    <updated>2007-10-02T20:35:41Z</updated>
    <link href="http://www.eco-villages.org/notes/view/296" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<p>In-depth article</p>


	<p><img src="http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/images/dvd-benchmark-part-5-tomato-feathering.gif" alt="" /></p>


	<ul>
	<li> The Nature of Interlaced TV, Film-to-Video Conversion, and Other Interesting Gambits</li>
	</ul>


	<ul>
	<li>Why Are Progressive Players Better?</li>
		<li>How Progressive Players Work
	<ul>
	<li>3-2 Pulldown</li>
		<li>Why Deinterlacing is Necessary</li>
		<li>Film-Mode Deinterlacing</li>
		<li>Video-Mode Deinterlacing</li>
	</ul>
	</li>
		<li>What Does &#8220;True&#8221; Progressive Mean?</li>
		<li>Common Chipsets</li>
	</ul>


	<p>etc&#8230;</p>


	<p><a href="http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/dvd-benchmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.html">HomeTheaterHifi article</a></p>      </div>
    </content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <id>urn:edouard:science-technology:audio-and-video:note-293</id>
    <title>SED</title>
    <author>
      <name>edouard</name>
    </author>
    <published>2007-04-09T17:49:25Z</published>
    <updated>2010-01-25T20:14:17Z</updated>
    <link href="http://www.eco-villages.org/notes/view/293" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <content type="xhtml">
      <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<p><strong>Future display technology: Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display</strong></p>


	<p>Initial specifications:  <strong>1080p</strong> (1920&#215;1080) resolution, <strong>1 msec</strong> response time (handles fast motion), and an extremely high <strong>100,000:1 dynamic range</strong> ratio! + low power consumption! = <strong>ultimate display technology</strong> !?</p>


	<p><img src="http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/Canon_SED3.gif" alt="" /></p>


	<p><em>Detailed article</em>:<br /><a href="http://www.pcauthority.com.au/feature.aspx?CIaFID=1428">http://www.pcauthority.com.au/feature.aspx?CIaFID=1428</a></p>


	<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display"><span class="caps">SED</span> on wikipedia</a></p>


	<p><em>News update</em> (Oct. 3rd, 2006):<br /><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/03/55-inch-sed-hdtvs-on-the-way-in-08/">http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/03/55-inch-sed-hdtvs-on-the-way-in-08</a></p>


	<p>Canon &#38; Toshiba have just annonced that <span class="caps">SED</span> displays will finally be <strong>hitting shelves in limited quantities by late 2007, and entering mass production in 2008</strong>. Leading the charge will be these 1080p 55-inch models with 450 nits of brightness, 50,000:1 contrast ratio, stunning 1ms response time&#8230;and no price tag yet!<br />With Samsung, Sharp and Sony releasing &#8220;Full HD&#8221; LCDs in the 50-inch range for around 5 large this fall, the market in 2008 could be tough to crac!</p>


	<p><em>News update</em> (Jan. 2007):<br /><a href="http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20061225/125850/"><span class="caps">SED</span> Won&#8217;t Become Commodity article</a></p>


<blockquote>
	<p><strong>Toshiba plans to start shipping <span class="caps">SED</span> products in fall 2007, but considers focusing on professional users at first</strong>, positioning the <span class="caps">SED</span> as a &#8220;limited, pricey, high-end&#8221; product. Nishida said the company&#8217;s plan to build an <span class="caps">SED</span> volume-production facility in Himeji is &#8220;advancing on track.&#8221; However, saying the <strong><span class="caps">SED</span> is not &#8220;competitive against the <span class="caps">LCD TV</span>&#8221;</strong> in the market for consumer TVs, Nishida indicated that Toshiba is not planning to bring <span class="caps">SED</span> to the current consumer TV market.</p>

</blockquote>




	<p><em>Postponed again</em> (May 25 2007):<br /><a href="http://www.canon.com/press/2007/sed2007may25.html">Canon press release</a></p>


<blockquote>
	<p>Canon Inc. today announced that it has decided to postpone for the time being the launch of next-generation flat-panel <span class="caps">SED</span>* televisions &#8230; Reasons for the postponement include prolonged litigation currently underway in the United States and efforts to establish mass-production technology aimed at realizing further cost reductions.</p>

</blockquote>




	<p><strong><span class="caps">SED</span> might be dead/too late!... too bad &#8230; meanwhile, plasma, <span class="caps">LCD</span> screens are getting better and better and cheaper!</strong></p>


	<p><em>Good news</em> (August 2008):<br /><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/06/canon-wins-sed-lawsuit-can-produce-sed-displays-again/">Canon wins <span class="caps">SED</span> lawsuit, can produce <span class="caps">SED</span> displays again</a></p>


<blockquote>
	<p>In spite of their legal success, Canon announced at the same time that the financial crisis of 2008 was making introduction of the sets far from certain<br />... [but] ... a source within Canon told me at the show that the <span class="caps">SED</span> is still very much alive as a pro monitor technology<br />(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display#History">wikipedia <span class="caps">SED</span> article</a>)</p>

</blockquote>      </div>
    </content>
  </entry>
</feed>
