...skeet....

wow, that's much better. the image on the right sucks ass!

... This is why I bought a CRT HDTV. Beautiful colors and contrast. The downside? it's big and heavy. But I don't have to worry about where in the room I'm sitting, the picture is beautiful no matter what.

Or get a barco or any CRT projector and get 20000:1 to 30000:1 Sure its huge and a few years old but how can you compete with and 8ft 1080p image.
http://www.curtpalme.com/PJSpecs_Barco.shtm

Can't wait... it should help bring prices down even farther on items us normal people who find 50,000:1 ratio perfectly fine! It's unfair to such a nice product next to the waif

Why does everyone love these so much?
The refresh rate is still going to make your eyes bleed.
When you all sell your LCDs, I'll take 'em.

n3ldan: why would the refresh rate bother your eyes?

Correct me if I'm wrong or I'm missing something, but I think that each pixel has it's own phosphors and electron gun...so it's not like old CRTs where one electron gun has to scan from the top corner, across every row on down to the opposite bottom corner. I think the refresh on SED's should be a similar process to the screen refresh of an LCD...but with a faster pixel response and therefore the possibility of higher frame rate and faster motion without ghosting.

I'm opting for AMOLED. that samsung monitor is hotness and a half.

The image on the right is the good one smart guy.

The higher contrast ratio means that bright objects like the moon vs. the black sky look like they are meant too.

I would think that 100,000:1 contrast exceeds what a video camera is capable of capturing.

I haven't been to Japan but either that lady is really tall or the ceiling is really low in her room!

I think I'm actually going to wait until these guys are are out in full force before I decide how to jump into HD. The HDTV's I've seen so far are nice-- big jump in picture quality-- but not something I would label as "great"... and it's mostly for the reasons that SED's are supposed to address. I want to jump in soon, but I want to see what these look like first.

basically the joke is on anyone who buys an LCD/Plasma "HDTV" thinking that they are actually getting a remotely decent picture. sure you have 'i have HDTV!' bragging rights... but you also have a godawfully hideous picture. like pure hideousness. seriously. the lack of correct blacks makes me want to vomit.

i really never realized how many legally blind people were on this planet until Wal-Mart started selling LCD "HDTV"s.

CRT is basically the only thing giving a remotely decent picture. SED is the technology that will finally (like the article says) have all the benefits of CRT with the form factor and convenience and "chic" factor of LCD.

Check this out -

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/03/brightside_hdr...

It is basically giving you simulated daylight out of a screen.

Hook this up to a computer, and display all those HDR photographs you make with multiple exposures + photomatix natively, instead of downsampling them to 8 bits. Still, I'm gonna wait for laser screens. Not because they're necessarily better, but because they have lasers.

CRTs have high contrast my foot.

my LCD at home is so clear that I can see the picture of the SED, but the CRTs at school, the pic looks like it's just a projector, you can't see the outline of the screen in the image.

so if SED has the contrast of a CRT, bite me.

canfraggle - that's a really interesting article. I can't stand the non-black blacks on so many tv's. I do a fair bit of color correction as a video editor, so I've become painfully aware of how washed out so much of what I see out there really is.

One thing I'm curious about, though is why they're talking 16 bit images. From the end of your article, Nvidia's chief scientist:

"I think that High Dynamic Range Lighting is going to be the single most significant change in the visual quality over the next couple of years. It's almost as big as shading... There are new HDR displays that can display a full 16-bit dynamic range, and I can tell you that the difference is stunning. When these displays become more affordable in the next year or two, I don't know how we'll ever go back to the old way." Source: Extremetech

But in the post production articles and tutorials I've been looking at regarding HDR, they're talking 32-bit like this rundown where I first heard about HDR a while back. So is the consumer getting gypped again? Will they be stuck with half the bit-depth I use, thus making my work look all poopy on their TVs compared to how glorious it was before the unwashed masses got a hold of it?

Anyways, I'm really excited about all these advances in display tech. I am curious as to how some of these new high contrast flat panels compare to a CRT HDTV.

I have to say, no matter how unblack my blacks are, I have never felt the need to puke while examining the contrast on an LCD panel. :P

rimplestultskin:
CRT monitors at a school were probably bought for $10 a piece brand new. The point of CRT monitors having a very high contrast ratio is moot if you buy a bargin bin monitor.

So shut up and post somewhere else if you don't know what your'e talking about.

My CRT HDTV (KD-36xs955) shows much better contrast and colors than any of $4k-$5k plasma/LCD on the market. Plus, it doesn't have that burn-in issue.

Looking forward for SED technology to make a strong headway in the future.