×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Motorola Debuts Nano-Emissive Flat Screen

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the when-will-it-open-its-flower-to-us dept.

Displays 285

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?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

ssss (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12482761)

frostee grits

Very NICE press release! (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482768)

but does anybody have screenshots of this thing running ? Please no "simulated screen" screenshots that I see so often in bestbuy/compusa ads :-P

Re:Very NICE press release! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12482841)

Try this [engadget.com]

Re:Very NICE press release! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12482936)

Well i looked at those screenshots and the quality doesn't seem any better than the screen i'm using now.

Re:Very NICE press release! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12483015)

If only I had mod points, very funny :D

Re:Very NICE press release! (3, Funny)

Jemima's Witness (861035) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483183)

Yeah kinda like those old DVD comercials that were on VHS tapes.

Uhmm ... (-1, Troll)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482773)

No.

sweet (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12482775)

sweet

Color palatte? (2, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482778)

I've got a little battery powered DVD player [amazon.com] with letterbox screen, which is ok for hiding under the sheets and watching 1950's B-movie/horror flicks [imdb.com] or watching something other than the same tired movie you saw on the flight out to Timbuktu, but it's got rather poor available colors. Looks like 4096 or something sometimes.

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.

Re:Color palatte? (1)

SomeGuyTyping (751195) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482801)

But that's an LCD screen - the article talks about a crt display shrunk due to nanotech.

Re:Color palatte? (1, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482892)

But that's an LCD screen - the article talks about a crt display shrunk due to nanotech.

Still digitally driven. Ok, uses phosphors, which in the old CRT's were fired from 'color guns' and directed by electromagents (yoke) at the phosphors, exciting them and tossing off photons at desired wavelengths, in combinations of 3 phosphors (one red, one blue, one green) to form the particular color desired. As I understand it the LED is backlit and and filters the wavelength of light via layers of R, G and B (or suchlike) and due to the availibility of materials, quality of materials speed of electronics doing the switching, etc, it may or may not have better color resolution. Analog is a very difficult thing to simulate from digital. Will they make it work better than what we already have?

LCD Gamut (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12483187)

LCD gamut is not poor because it is digitally driven. It's poor because LCD is a backlit technology.

When an LCD screen tries to show "black" a large portion of the backlight is still showing through. Moreover, this varies across the screen.

This is an emissive technology using the same phosphors as a CRT. Banding might be a problem, but it's insignificant compared to the color range problems on LCDs. Banding is tolerable in many applications. Shimmering and lack of contrast is not. Most LCD manufacturers don't push to avoid banding because the contrast problem makes the LCD unsuitable for color sensitive work anyway.

In fact, this should get *better* range than a CRT, because any cell can turn completely off. Any but the highest quality CRT has a problem with rise time and such. The brightness level of parts of the image affect other parts.

Re:Color palatte? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12482845)

Color banding may be a problem with the DVD decoder and not the display color range.

hiding under the sheets??? (1)

bobalu (1921) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483066)

Ok, I'll bite - are you in the Boy Scouts, the Army or jail?

Last time I did that it was comic books with a flashlight and I was 9....

Not sure if it was intended, but thanks for the laugh. :-)

Re:hiding under the sheets??? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483185)

Ok, I'll bite - are you in the Boy Scouts, the Army or jail? Last time I did that it was comic books with a flashlight and I was 9.... Not sure if it was intended, but thanks for the laugh. :-)

Nope, not any of the above. Mostly I was having problem with reflected glare on the screen and how dark the lighting of the horror films was. I found pulling the sheets over the player made it considerably easier to follow and sort of fun, like back with the comics and flashlight part of early life.

The reason I was watching it in the afternoon was because I came home from a hard 60 mile bike ride (I ride with pros, former pros and just damn talented riders) and my tired ol' body needs a rest afterwards. I lie down for a nap or rest and sometimes watch a short DVD. Attack of the Giant Leeches was actually pretty cool. I've got The Screaming Skull lined up for next time.

Hiding under the sheets?!? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483171)

Methinks it is not B-movies and horror flicks that you don't want your mother to catch you watching...

Re:Hiding under the sheets?!? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483215)

Methinks it is not B-movies and horror flicks that you don't want your mother to catch you watching...

Those old horror flicks are kinda fun to watch now. A bit campy, but suprisingly better acted than most films today. Sometimes you also get a bit tired of Tom & Crow's narrative and would like to just enjoy some old guys-in-monster-suits flicks.

I was a bit shocked to see how much the Toho Godzilla movies are going for. Yipes! Most of this stuff I can get for a few bucks a DVD, not that though.

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12482779)

Organic Monitor? Now I can ditch my old LSD, errrrrm, LCD. Psych dude.

A race to the finish (5, Interesting)

moofdaddy (570503) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482780)

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.

Race yes, finish no. (2, Interesting)

lheal (86013) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482854)

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.

Re:Race yes, finish no. (3, Funny)

AVIDJockey (816640) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482944)

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.

Agreed. That's when a shift will be made to improve on mop and wetvac technology

Re:A race to the finish (1)

MrLint (519792) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483052)

Last I read (which was admittedly a long while ago) OLEDs had 2 major problems, 1) blue, and 2) they have historically had a degradation problems over time. Losing luminosity. i dont know how this has progressed.

Timeline? (5, Interesting)

op12 (830015) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482787)

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.

Re:Timeline? (2, Insightful)

nacturation (646836) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483003)

No mention in the article.

Of course not... it's just a press release [google.com] meant to drum up business for Motorola, and generate ad revenue for PhysOrg.com.

Re:Timeline? (1)

iamlucky13 (795185) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483129)

Frankly, I'm shocked to see this come out so soon. It can't be more than a couple months since I personally first heard about using carbon nanotubes to emit light, and here they are claiming to have built a TV using them already.

The cost estimate is almost obligatory these days when discussing flat screens. Everybody's saying "Sure, it cost $3000 now, but wait until we refine the production. It'll be $500 in a year or two." I think I first heard that claim 2 years ago.

From what I've read about flat screen TV's, low cost will be one key to success, but life cycle will be just as important. Perhaps the nanotube screens will get a leg up on the competition by lasting longer? I guess I'll have to wait to find out.

Re: Timeline? (4, Interesting)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483225)

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?

With flatscreen tech making such fast advances, I've decided to postpone replacement of my CRT as long as possible. Basically, until it dies, or the image quality goes down badly.

With most computer components, we've gotten used to something like 2-3 year life cycles. If you make a less-than-optimal purchase, too bad, but replacement will follow fairly quick.

But monitors/TV's, like washing machines, typically last quite a bit longer. So I'll be happy if my CRT lasts another year, so that better/cheaper flatscreens are on sale, when the time comes. Maybe this technology has arrived in the shops by then.

Yes, it is! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12482790)

Right after all those the super-advanced-high-density memory technologies we keep hearing about hit the market... call it late 2012.

Bigger is better (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482791)

...we estimate the manufactured cost for a 40-inch NED panel could be under $400

I keep trying to come up with something witty to say, except I can't stop fantasizing about having a 40" LCD screen. Well, maybe two side-by-side for life-sized pictures of little people.

Re:Bigger is better (3, Interesting)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482913)

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.

Re:Bigger is better (2, Interesting)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483047)

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???

Re:Bigger is better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12482933)

At last I'll be able to display my penis full-sized!

Re:Bigger is better (1)

jenkles (837055) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482973)

...we estimate the manufactured cost for a 40-inch NED panel could be under $400

Translation: " We can now keep charging you the same amount we alway havew,we might eventake a few hundred dollars off the multi-thousand price tag while still generating more profit because you think we are giving you a break."

is this the breakthrough? Maybe (5, Insightful)

Prophetic_Truth (822032) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482794)

Why do HD receivers still cost more than the average ones? The cable plans with HD are more than the ones without..Getting the Screen cheaper is great, but there are still a lot of costs associated with HDTV which end up being more than Joe Sixpack can't afford.

Re:is this the breakthrough? Maybe (1)

Prophetic_Truth (822032) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482938)

more than Joe Sixpack can afford even

Re:is this the breakthrough? Maybe (1)

HaeMaker (221642) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483221)

All of the other costs associated with HD are issues of competition and market size.

These issues will fall like dominoes when $400 HDTVs are released.

Cheap screens = more users = larger market = more players who want a piece = more competition = lower prices.

At $400 a pop... (3, Interesting)

LewsTherinKinslayer (817418) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482803)

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...

Re:At $400 a pop... (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482894)

However, I'd say for most people, its not worth paying $400 dollars for a TV of any size or picture quality.

1. Think about the savings in power consumption.
2. Remember cars were expensive before Henry Ford. (Just wait until the mass productions lower the costs)

Re:At $400 a pop... (3, Informative)

pla (258480) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482908)

I'd still say its a bit high to be considered the "low cost necessary to bring HDTV to the masses."

For 40"???

I upgraded my TV last year, to a 540p-capable model (DAMN I wish I'd waited another year), for just about a grand... at 32" widescreen. Absolutely beautiful for progressive DVDs, but still, now I regret not having a 720p (though, at least 1080i doesn't require scaling...)

$400 for a 40" TV does not suck, at all.


However, I consider this important for a totally different reason...

This doesn't sound like an LCD. It sounds like a CRT with each pixel having its own electron gun, in an eighth of an inch thick. Think about that for a minute, and then just try to stop drooling. The thought certainly impresses me, and I only watch about an hour of TV per week.

Near-infinite brightness, perfect contrast (even "real" CRTs can't do that), pixel-addressable (ie, infinite sharpness?), lightweight and low depth, presumeably low power consumption display costing less than either a comparable CRT or LCD having all the shortcomings of either of those technologies as they exist today.


Perhaps I read more into this than I should, but if it delivers half of that, time to invest in their stock...

Re:At $400 a pop... (4, Funny)

JamesO (56897) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483035)

....Near-infinite brightness....


Dammit, I'm going to need some new sunglasses...

"Infinite"? (4, Funny)

Hortensia Patel (101296) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483160)

Near-infinite brightness [...] infinite sharpness?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:At $400 a pop... (2, Funny)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482963)

However, I'd say for most people, its not worth paying $400 dollars for a TV of any size or picture quality.

You're on crack. I know a lot of people who've shelled out a lot more than that on smaller CRTs (I dropped $700+ on a Sony Wega a couple years ago).

Especially when you consider for all intensive purposes

<grammar>Not even for the more relaxed purposes!</grammar>

Re:At $400 a pop... (1)

nunchux (869574) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483004)

Yeah, and most people wouldn't spend $400 on a hard drive based MP3 player either. Not when all the music sucks nowadays.

I'd also say there's a lot worth watching in HDTV. Maybe not the tonight show, but we've had ninety years of movies now and at least a few thousand of them would benefit from HDTV. And when HDTV is the norm-- and as animation and FX technology improve-- there will be plenty worth watching.

Re:At $400 a pop... (2, Informative)

Queer Boy (451309) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483007)

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.

For all intents and purposes we're talking about $400 for a 40" television which is cheaper than it is now for a 40". Your opinion about nothing worth watching in HDTV is just that, opinion. I have a 65" Mitsubishi RPTV and HDTV makes SDTV look like ass, doesn't matter what I am watching.

You fail to grasp the concept of everything HDTV offers, it's not just higher resolution, it's colour information as well. No more "rainbows" when you are looking at any image where the contrast changes dramatically (such as a checkerboard or black and white stripes). I can see the wood grain on Discovery HD when they are doing Trading Spaces. I can see the film grain when they show movies on TNTHD, I can see the fabric weave on Conan O'Brien's tie on Late Night.

The sooner everything goes HD the better. I just think they should have done more than increase the resolution by 2.25.

Re:At $400 a pop... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12483178)

From TFA:
UPDATE: Should have said, "...costs less than $400 to manufacture."
In practical terms, that means an MSRP of around $1000 (as much or more than a 40" flat screen CRT).

Manufcatured cost... (1)

sterno (16320) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483190)

If you read the article you see this: ...the manufactured cost for a 40-inch NED panel could be under $400.

That's the MANUFACTURED cost. That's not what you'd be paying for it at Best Buy. Wholesale price would probably be at least double that, and then you're looking at probably another 50% markup on top of that to give you the retail price.

So really you're probably going to be paying $1000-1500 when all is said and done. Currently an HD flat panel is going to be in the $3000+ price range. So that's still a tremendous improvement, but it's a far cry from $400.

Let's hope so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12482809)

Cheap is good! :)

Oh the potential!!! (1)

inherent monkey love (875830) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482811)

This is great news! I mean, by the time this thing hits mass market, the Star Wars Penultimate DVD edition will come out with extra special, previously unreleased on the 50928398 other special editions footage, and I'll be able to finally see Natalie Portman, covered in hot grits, in stunning, hi-def. Hellllloooooo MOTO!

"Affordable?" (4, Funny)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482813)

400 bucks buys a used car...I won't really consider these affordable until they're down to 200 or less.

Re:"Affordable?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12482879)

Yes but that's the cost for a 40" TV. I'd imagine smaller ones would be cheaper, unless the technology doesn't allow for smaller ones (didn't RTFA...).

Not a troll (3, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482955)

400 bucks buys a used car...I won't really consider these affordable until they're down to 200 or less.

I love how this got moderated "troll". Folks- digital TV is supposedly "mandated" for switchover. Except nobody's making cheap digital TVs- so people aren't buying.

People also aren't buying because current plasma and LCD units just DO NOT LAST! We have a TV in our house that is at least 15 years old, and works just fine (yes, it's got an IR remote, yes, it tunes basic cable, etc). While Motorola's press release hasn't said much about exactly how long the lifetime will be on these, if the TV industry wants consumers to buy 'em in numbers large enough to make the "mandate" possible- they'd better make them a tad more durable.

Re:Not a troll (1)

iamlucky13 (795185) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483189)

Perhaps I should leave off commenting on the FCC mandated switchover since it's been discussed quite a few times other places, but it still irks me. It's going to keep coming back and biting us in the butt quite a few times even after the switchover date passes.

Who knows, maybe nanotubes will prove to be more durable in TV's than LCD's. Plus there will be the cool factor. Just like how some people like to brag "My leg brace is made from the same metal as the SR-71 Blackbird." Maybe it will be, "My TV uses the same material as the space elevator."

Re:"Affordable?" (1)

repetty (260322) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483135)

If I can't buy one with the pennies that I've been pitching onto the Coke machine down the hall, then it's not affordable.

Re:"Affordable?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12483139)

$400 for 40" TV seems pretty reasonable actually, considering a new 27" costs around $175. I would imagine a smaller one of these would reach price parity with CRTs.

Will it have more than one native resolution? (1)

Sark666 (756464) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482824)

Being a gamer, I haven't made the jump to lcd. I want different resolutions and the resizing to lcd's one res is an eyesore to me. Not to mention lcd's other limitations like ghosting of fast moving images.

Re:Will it have more than one native resolution? (1)

Living WTF (838448) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482926)

If you were a real gamer, you would have spent more money on your PC than on your bike/car/girlfriend/whatever, so you could run all games smoothly at the native resolution of your TFT.

Re:Will it have more than one native resolution? (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483093)

Well, if you do something like what was done over at Tom's Hardware Guide, [tomshardware.com] it wouldn't matter all that much about the resolution, and most XGA displays can do multiple resolutions (though at times, it only shrinks the actual image in order to accurately reproduce the desired image in the resolution you desire.)

plasma? (1)

Neitokun (882224) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482828)

also, how is this going to compare to plasma displays? the only mention of them in the artical is when it says they will be cheaper. considering that plasma is considered the high-end of displays, and there's barely any mention of it, one may think that this is nothing more than a press release and not "real" news...

Re:plasma? (4, Informative)

grendelkhan (168481) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483036)

considering that plasma is considered the high-end of displays
Plasma is for suckers - the color fades and burn in is a serious problem [pcworld.com] . For the money they are a total rip off. LCD's are fantastic but really expensive.

Holding reviews till I can see it (4, Insightful)

hoka (880785) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482833)

For just about every piece of technology I've always found that its always overhyped in some way (purely the fault of marketers). I wouldn't hold my breath over an announcement like this, while yes it may be very interesting and perhaps be a forward-moving technology for the industry, I have heard "this will make ___ cheaper, and is better" far too many times to start going "omg, now I must migrate everything over to it!". Time always reveals the winners.

Where's my flying car?! (3, Insightful)

rjelks (635588) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482857)

I'd really like the flat panel technologies to get cheaper, but we've been hearing about it for a long time. I keep reading articles about new display technologies that never actually bear fruit. This new prototype from Motorolla sounds promising...$400 for a 40-inch HDTV sounds like a bargin. I'll buy one as soon as I read about it on my "electronic ink" newspaper. :^)

/impatient
/sorry about the fark slashes

Re:Where's my flying car?! (1)

pergamon (4359) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482934)

your "electronic ink" newspaper [dynamism.com]

Well, almost.

Re:Where's my flying car?! (1)

Severious (826370) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483092)

Looks nice, I have been waiting for something like that for a while. I have a PDA that all I use it for is as book reader, the screen is pretty crappy compared to real paper.

But Sony has a knack for screwing things up. 600$ and closed file formats I would say that is a screwup. Nobody will be buying it.

But it is nice to see such things are almost here.

"N"th display technology (1)

ZP-Blight (827688) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482863)

I for one would like to see some of these technologies start to mature already, we've been hearing about new display technologies for at least 5 years now, but nothing serious has come into the mass-market except for postage stamp sized devices. Which while may be good for digital cameras and cell phones are not practical for TV sets.

Currently the two ruling flatscreen TV technologies plainly suck. LCDs have horrible viewing angles, images smear or are aliased due to slow rates while Plasma have degrading brightness (usual plasmas can lose half its brightness in around 6 years and die in 12) and are way too expensive.

Buy a projector... (1)

E-Rock (84950) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483055)

Everyone forgets the wee little projector.

1. It scales well (mine was a 60" at my last house and is a 90" now).
2. Viewing angle is 180 degrees.
3. The bulb is replacable so it dies before the birghtness is an issue.
4. Cost! For $1,500 you can have an HD monster screen TV.

This doesn't work in homes with an always on TV, due to bulb life, but otherwise it's a hell of a solution.

PS - A $400 manufacturing cost will still be a couple few grand at the store.

Nanotech (1)

or another similar t (882227) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482870)

I suppose this is made possible by the multi-walled cardbon fiber nanotube mass production facilities that are slowly going on-line. Is this where it all starts? Maybe I will look back on these next few years as the beginning of our ascendancy into technological wizardry? I tend to get ahead of myself, anyway.

several key points (5, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482875)

Hate to rain on the parade, but:

a)PhysOrg is just a slightly more subtle version of PR Newswire. Note there's no author. Slashdot, please stop linking to crap like this. Manufacturers- if you're going to put out a press release, just call it a #@$!ing press release- and stop insulting our intelligence.

b)Manufactured cost is NOT market cost. Not even close. If a NE display lasts longer than plasma and looks equally nice- you can be damn sure it will cost MORE to the consumer.

c)They claim longer lifetime, but no range/estimate is given, even though they surely know what it is. If it's a year or two more than plasma (which is lucky to last 3-4 years), pardon me while I let out a big 'ol yawn.

d)A five-inch unit was produced because, most likely, they haven't been able to get high enough yield rates to do a 42" display. Call us when you've got something that actually resembles your target application in terms of scale.

Re:several key points (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483104)

Manufacturers- if you're going to put out a press release, just call it a #@$!ing press release- and stop insulting our intelligence.

They do label it a press release. [google.com] The not-so-reputable sites package it up and sell it to you as news. But don't blame Motorola, blame PhysOrg for not putting (Press Release) like Yahoo does, and blame Slashdot for accepting a company's PR spam.

Re:several key points (2, Interesting)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483168)

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.

Re:several key points (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12483201)

Information wants to be free.

Down with the Physics Information Association of America (PIAA). We'll copy your overpriced stuff for free and there's nothing you can do about it.

Re:several key points (2, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483114)

a)Give us an alternative physics / tech newswire, and we'll follow.

b)If it costs more, what makes you think the consumer will buy it in the first place?

c)If you had researched on nanotube displays, you'd see that it's the evolution of CRT's - hence the same (or more) lifetime.

d) This is slashdot! Why do you think we get news on the Space Elevator when it's years or decades away? Doh!

Still Pixels (SDE) (3, Interesting)

barfy (256323) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482877)

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.

Will not replace LCD (1)

rookworm (822550) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482878)

Many people choose LCDs in order to reduce eye strain. Unless I'm missing something, this seems not to get that advantage.

Yes, you're missing something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12483141)

...a brain.

Eyestrain from CRTs is due to the scanning of the electron gun sweeping back and forth, up and down, across the screen.

There is no such thing in ANY flat-panel display, because they are all active matrix, with each pixel activated independently by its own dedicated electronics behind it.

Motorola still in GPL-violations? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12482884)

http://www.gpl-violations.org/ [gpl-violations.org]

Killer App for HDTV (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482897)

until prices drop to under $500 for a useable commercial HDTV, it will never hit full introduction, no matter how much the media industry tries to change it.

Evidence - the reaction of reps just last week delaying required signal death for non-HDTV signal, after a firestorm of consumer complaints at forcing overpriced HDTVs down our gullets.

So, this has been a long time coming.

Re:Killer App for HDTV (0)

pla (258480) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483090)

until prices drop to under $500 for a useable commercial HDTV, it will never hit full introduction, no matter how much the media industry tries to change it.

Perhaps you haven't kept up on the legal landscape, but next year, broadcast analogue TV goes dark in the US.

Not to say you won't see downsampling receiver boxes to let people keep using their ancient 20" NTSC TVs despite the lack of native content, but at least programming- and quality-wise, NTSC has about a year to live... Even if Congress gives it an extention (entirely too likely, at this point), I give it less than five years at the outside.

And I, for one, look forward to that. Especially now that the courts have struck down the broadcast flag. I have to admit, I kinda dreaded the combination (though had faith that easy circumventions would exist), but now? Bring on the 700 channels of HDTV!


And I don't even watch much TV. But why not embrace improvement? Even for the hour-per-week I waste on the flickering box, I might as well not get a headache from trying to watch a 50+ year old technology cope with the modern world.

Re:Killer App for HDTV (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483162)

Perhaps you haven't kept up on the legal landscape, but next year, broadcast analogue TV goes dark in the US.

As I said in my original post, congress backed down on that last week. It won't go dark, because consumer pressure forced them to back off.

Again, the market cares nought for man nor beast.

If the price drops to $500 in five years, I agree - it will go dark. If it stays up in the $2000 range you can rant all you want, but the market will choose to continue it.

I really *want* to be excited. (5, Interesting)

ultramk (470198) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482904)

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-

price isn't cost (4, Insightful)

lvcipriani (764022) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482940)

The price to consumers isn't going to be the cost plus some small markup. The price to consumers will be whatever the manufacturer figures will maximize their profit, which could be quite high considering the demand. They ain't no charity. That's very cool technology, do you think they would invest in that if they thought they couldn't patent it ? ;-)

Re:price isn't cost (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483039)

The price to consumers isn't going to be the cost plus some small markup. The price to consumers will be whatever the manufacturer figures will maximize their profit, which could be quite high considering the demand.

Ah, I can see you never took marketing or economics courses ...

The reality is that, until the price drops to about $500, widescale use of HDTVs won't happen, economies of scale won't happen, and the TV stations will have to continue to broadcast in non-HDTV format. Consumer pressure on national forces will ensure that.

So, it is critical to drop the cost down.

It's like cell phones - until they became commodities and cheaper than $500, widescale introduction didn't happen. This can be achieved partially thru consumer leasing or lease to buy options, but the market pushes the price down to the sweet spot.

Same thing happened with radio. And Black and White TV. And color TV. And PCs.

PCs were a bit atypical, in that a higher level was maintained for many years, but recent market actions show the invisible hand cares nought for man nor beast.

This would be what I've been waiting for. (1)

scronline (829910) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482949)

I'm not about to spend $2000+ on a small HDTV. It's just not worth it. But if a decent sized one with a low cost is available that also doesn't suck balls, I'm so there.

Life span? (1)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482966)

Until these things have run for a few thousand hours, we won't know if they have burn-in problems. I would expect the carbon nanotubes to erode at the ends due to the extremely high electronic fields and for carbon tube fragments to eventually poison the phosphors.

TFA touts that this "could offer ... longer lifetimes," but I'm always cynical of breathless promises of what some future technology "could" bring.

Is this the breakthrough? (3, Insightful)

BillsPetMonkey (654200) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482969)

Is this the breakthrough we needed to finally make HDTV and flat-panel computer displays *really* affordable?

Not if Motorola has anything to do with it.

MOTOROLA CORPORATE STRATEGY circa 1930 (CONFIDENTIAL)

1. Invent something brilliant.
2. Overprice it.
3. Watch your competitors undercut you with better products
4. Produce a "budget" model to compete with said competitors
5. Get branded the lame duck of the industry
6. Claim to have invented it and therefore have a god-given right to overcharge and underfeature it.
7. Umm .... profi ... hang on, look what we've invented!

Senior executives' strategies usually outlive technologies. Unfortunately.

Re:Is this the breakthrough? (1)

repetty (260322) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483155)

I was thinking almost the same thing... "Oh, please, anyone but Motorola..."

Nothing new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12482980)

I get macro emissive after eating beans-n-franks.

Does this include low power consumption like LCD? (3, Interesting)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 9 years ago | (#12482997)

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.

Re:Does this include low power consumption like LC (1)

omega9 (138280) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483124)

That may be the first time I've seen Lily Tomlin quoted in a sig.

It's all about the Peniums, baby. (1)

FuzzyFox (772046) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483018)

I've got a flat screen monitor 40" wide!
I believe that yours says Etch-a-Sketch on the side!

-- Weird Al

Watchout Motorola (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483028)

Yes, watchout! I wonder whether Motorola will do the needful and end up more visible in the home entertainment scene. The Asians (read Japanese, Koreans and Chinese), will catch-up and be seen in the world, to have "created" this technology. It has happened before and it surely might happen again.

When I look arround my living room, all I see are Japanese/Korean electronics. Nothing is made in my own USA! But I know that as Americans, we invented the transistor that enbles all the magic arround us to happen.

Why this application? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12483073)

Maybe they decided to show this technology in its best light. (Can't blame them for that.) Does their choice demonstrate some inherent limitation of the technology. They are predicting something with a relatively low number of pixels per square inch.

Is resolution somehow limited for such technology?

$400 *cost to build* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12483112)

The article mentions nothing of what the technology will still cost us consumers?

Shelf life? (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483144)

I've heard some of these flat panels only last ~5 years, and aren't at all repairable. That sucks for a variety of reasons. It'd be nice (for everyone but tv manufacturers) if they lasted longer.

Lower price later. Icnrease resolution (1)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483148)

Rather than making these things thinner and cheaper all the time, I really wish they'd concentrate on keeping the prices about the same, or maybe a bit lower, as they are right now, while simultaneously increasing the resolution. It would be cool to have a 2048x1024 display the size of a PDA. That would mean that one of those cinema displays or whatever would have resolution measured in gigapixels or something like that. And that would be good for a variety of different types of work. Then, they can concentrate on lowering prices.

Unfinished Sentence (4, Insightful)

Bean9000 (841843) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483154)

The display appears to promise lower costs for a full 40" HDTV screen bringing the price down to $400 for the manufacturer.

As a few other have hinted at, the original statement is highly misleading. Yes, the cost of the actual parts is a factor in determining the price of a product - but it's only one of many. It's effect on the price is also inversely proportional to how much the item is a 'luxury' item or a 'necessary item.'

So need to worry if you just spent $5k on a plasma which cost the manufacturer $3k to produce. Because if it cost them only $400 to produce it, they would still have charged you $5k...and rightfully so as you were willing to pay that amount in the first place.

So this is definitely exciting news for TV manufacturers as it will serve nicely to increase the profit margin. When will we benefit? When nobody wants to pay as much for a plasma anymore - and, more importantly, doesn't.

Plasmaware or for real? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12483169)

It's carbon nanotube - so maybe the terminology isn't really exact.

Comparison of Each Type (4, Informative)

vectorian798 (792613) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483173)

CRT:
Very Fast Response Time
Perfect Viewing Angles
Massive and Heavy

LCD:
Lower Resolutions
Bad Viewing Angles
Bad Response Times (though recent 8ms panels reduce this immensely)
Expensive
Very Nice Colors
Thin and Light
Doesn't hurt the eye

Plasma:
Dies in 5 years due to gas leakage

Rear-projector:
Yea these suck from the sides or close-up so let's not even mention these

Carbon-nanotube (CNT) based Motorola Display:
Because it uses phosphors like in CRTs, good brightness
Fast response time
Good viewing angle
Thin and light
Cheap
DOESNT NEED BACKLIGHT (no more washed-out colors in sunlight)
Longevity compared to plasmas
Though this is a 5" prototype, it is a 5" section of a larger 42" CNT grid for a large HD display, so stop bitching about this being 5 inches

Other notes: Since CNTs are small and the phosphor technology is the same as in CRTs (excite phosphor atoms to give off photons by making appropriate electrical connections using switches...in this case, CNT's) I am assuming that we can actually get large high-resolution monitors (this one is 1280 x 720) perhaps just like the crazy CRTs with 2XXX by 1XXX resolution.

Health risks for workers (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483194)

$400 price does not include health costs for workers in nanotube-screen manufacturing facilities or the costs of preventing such illnesses.

Now, if someone can find a cheap way to handle nanoparticles and keep the health risks managable, then we may see $400 TVs.

$400? Yeah but not MSRP (1)

Man in Spandex (775950) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483213)

The display appears to promise lower costs for a full 40" HDTV screen bringing the price down to $400.

Sure it may be $400 but then go the store and look at that price tag: at least double. They know it would still sell so why would they lower the price? They're not dumb.

What's the power consumption of one of these? (2, Interesting)

demon_2k (586844) | more than 9 years ago | (#12483229)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?