Talk:Field emission display
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Light-guns need hopping-patch or flying-dot raster scan ?
"For gamers, game consoles with light guns may be able to react to the object that emits the sufficient lighting dynamics on the screen like on conventional CRTs which emit a flexible range of light dynamics; whereas, an LCD flat-panel monitor will only produce color and illuminate it with a backlight."
My understanding is that light guns operate via the vertical refresh mechanics of a CRT display. They would not work correctly where there is no vertical refresh cycle, such as in a FED/SED/LCD or Plasma. Also one could question the relevancy as to if any modern consoles even sell light guns anymore. Klinky 01:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] FED and SED - is there a difference ?
The article isn't clear between differences of FED and SED, which are superior, or why they are different approaches. Could someone provide info?--Saoshyant talk / contribs (I don't like Wikipedophiles) 15:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I did a Google search and added a blurb on the distinction between SED and FED based on what I found. It would be great if an expert in the field could review that section for accuracy. BillMcGonigle 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I suspect it's a branding issue - perhaps the only difference is the material making the electron-emitting spikes - the physics is the same ? Maybe the second, high-voltage electrode or low-voltage phosphor ? One for the patent lawyers to fight out ! I suspect most groups will have considered both. --195.137.93.171 16:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Power comsumption
"Like LCDs, FEDs are energy efficient and could provide a flat panel technology that features less power consumption than existing LCD and plasma display technologies." This doesn't make any sense, so I'm taking the "Like LCDs" off the front. Hinges 03:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe they meant LEDs ? --195.137.93.171 16:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Negatives
The page lists the advantages for this technology, but no disadvantages. I'm anxious to see what they will be. (I'm assuming a high starting price despite the "They can also be cheaper to make, as they have fewer total components") Does anyone know anything in this area? I'd look myself, but I'm overly lazy
[edit] Advantage: scaling?
Unlike LCD displays, the FED may have flexible handling of non-standard resolutions that LCDs will emulate poorly due to their native resolutions.
This doesn't make much sense. This is as much an array of shiny spots as an LCD display; the scaling is done by an internal software. Anybody got any sources on this? — Mütze 05:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't a FED also have a native resolution?
--Ubern00b 21:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. |
| The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
[edit] NPOV suspected
It seems that disadvantages take a great part of the article beyond neutrality. Though advantages exist, they aren't categorized like disadvantages. Students like me may think FED is a poor technology. 211.241.93.129 (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Not wanting to be snarky, but being investor bait is not a technical advantage. No commercial product has ever been sold. As a research topic or tool field emission cathodes are of great value -- for consumer display, not so much. Field emitters require a continuously pumped high vacuum, usually 10-9, which excludes them from cheap, long-lived consuer applications. Those of us in the industry tried...really hard! OldZeb (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC).
