Whoa!! Look at your future TV here!!

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I'd like a flatscreen 60" because the current bigscreen rear projection tvs are absolute ass in terms of viewing at an angle and this is the main reason I'm still watching on my 27" at home!
 

Red

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2002
3,704
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I'd like a flatscreen 60" because the current bigscreen rear projection tvs are absolute ass in terms of viewing at an angle and this is the main reason I'm still watching on my 27" at home!

Yup, and because you're a cheap ass! =) edit: like me
 

Doggiedog

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
12,780
5
81
Interesting but it doesn't say what the resolution is like.

I for one don't like plasmas because I personally think the resolutions suck. If something were to interest me now, it would have to be a 1080p capable TV.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
Originally posted by: Doggiedog
Interesting but it doesn't say what the resolution is like.

I for one don't like plasmas because I personally think the resolutions suck. If something were to interest me now, it would have to be a 1080p capable TV.

This ought not to be a problem at all. The number of pixels increases with screen size, like the number of cells in a honeycomb. If the electronics permit, this could display much higher resolutions than that.
 
Jun 18, 2000
11,174
750
126
Is this going to end up like OLED where an actual product is "right around the corner" for the next 3 years? I'm disappointed the article doesn't talk about how the tech works. Ok, so they use chemical vapor deposition to grow the nanotubes. Great, so how is the image actually created? If the panel is only an inch thick then the nanotubes have to emit their own light. It will extremely difficult to fit a backlight behind the substrate on a panel that thin.

So many questions.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Is this going to end up like OLED where an actual product is "right around the corner" for the next 3 years? I'm disappointed the article doesn't talk about how the tech works. Ok, so they use chemical vapor deposition to grow the nanotubes. Great, so how is the image actually created? If the panel is only an inch thick then the nanotubes have to emit their own light. It will extremely difficult to fit a backlight behind the substrate on a panel that thin.

So many questions.

It isnt backlit

The tubes emit electrons that strike a phoshor screen like a CRT. Instead of one "gun", each tube acts as one.
 
Jun 18, 2000
11,174
750
126
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Is this going to end up like OLED where an actual product is "right around the corner" for the next 3 years? I'm disappointed the article doesn't talk about how the tech works. Ok, so they use chemical vapor deposition to grow the nanotubes. Great, so how is the image actually created? If the panel is only an inch thick then the nanotubes have to emit their own light. It will extremely difficult to fit a backlight behind the substrate on a panel that thin.

So many questions.

It isnt backlit

The tubes emit electrons that strike a phoshor screen like a CRT. Instead of one "gun", each tube acts as one.
I didn't know you could get carbon nanotubes to emit electrons like that. Pretty cool. I wonder if they plan on improving the phosphor compound to reduce burn-in and increase luminance.

I remember reading about a "thin screen" CRT based TV a couple years ago that sounded similar, but I don't think it was based on nanotech. They had prototypes several inches large, but never made it to market. Their site was dead for years. I wonder became of their work.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
ah heres hoping....

that sweet 60" sony plasma goes for 19k right now i think:(
 

Doggiedog

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
12,780
5
81
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Doggiedog
Interesting but it doesn't say what the resolution is like.

I for one don't like plasmas because I personally think the resolutions suck. If something were to interest me now, it would have to be a 1080p capable TV.

This ought not to be a problem at all. The number of pixels increases with screen size, like the number of cells in a honeycomb. If the electronics permit, this could display much higher resolutions than that.

The question is, is this technology more like plasma or LCD. Plasma has problems because the cell sizes are large making it suitable mainly for larger screens. Does making a 1080p NED require making the screen exceptionally big because you cannot shrink the cells? Will you get screendoor effect on these NED like plasmas because the cell sizes are large?

So many questions.

 
Jun 18, 2000
11,174
750
126
Originally posted by: Doggiedog
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Doggiedog
Interesting but it doesn't say what the resolution is like.

I for one don't like plasmas because I personally think the resolutions suck. If something were to interest me now, it would have to be a 1080p capable TV.

This ought not to be a problem at all. The number of pixels increases with screen size, like the number of cells in a honeycomb. If the electronics permit, this could display much higher resolutions than that.

The question is, is this technology more like plasma or LCD. Plasma has problems because the cell sizes are large making it suitable mainly for larger screens. Does making a 1080p NED require making the screen exceptionally big because you cannot shrink the cells? Will you get screendoor effect on these NED like plasmas because the cell sizes are large?

So many questions.
Carbon nanotubes can be extraordinarily small - less than 10nm. I certainly hope they would have no trouble fitting enough to reduce any issues with "screen-door effects". Carbon nanotubes are predicted to eventually replace modern CMOS transistors, which are currently around 90nm and still shrinking. Plasma cells are large because they have to store fluorescent gas in each individual pixel (actually 3 cells per pixel). This will ultimately limit how many cells you can fit on the substrate, and ultimately how large (or small) the screen can be for a given resolution.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Originally posted by: Doggiedog
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Doggiedog
Interesting but it doesn't say what the resolution is like.

I for one don't like plasmas because I personally think the resolutions suck. If something were to interest me now, it would have to be a 1080p capable TV.

This ought not to be a problem at all. The number of pixels increases with screen size, like the number of cells in a honeycomb. If the electronics permit, this could display much higher resolutions than that.

The question is, is this technology more like plasma or LCD. Plasma has problems because the cell sizes are large making it suitable mainly for larger screens. Does making a 1080p NED require making the screen exceptionally big because you cannot shrink the cells? Will you get screendoor effect on these NED like plasmas because the cell sizes are large?

So many questions.
Carbon nanotubes can be extraordinarily small - less than 10nm. I certainly hope they would have no trouble fitting enough to reduce any issues with "screen-door effects". Carbon nanotubes are predicted to eventually replace modern CMOS transistors, which are currently around 90nm and still shrinking. Plasma cells are large because they have to store fluorescent gas in each individual pixel (actually 3 cells per pixel). This will ultimately limit how many cells you can fit on the substrate, and ultimately how large (or small) the screen can be for a given resolution.


My understanding (gathered from here and there) is that tubes will be "bundled" together, and collectively they will strike the phosphor. This is possible because if the very small size you mention. This has the advantage of providing a certain robustness in that the failure of one or more tubes will not cause a bad pixel, or a noticable change in brightness. Of course implementation is everything, but again, if properly done, there aren't many disadvantages I can think of. Screen brightness and contrast is unknown, at least to us, but if it is good, then NEB will surpass plasma as the favored technology.