Samsung deployed in our local MediaMarkt several OLED TV's and displays, they look awesome, but their contrast is said to be only 1000:1 (the sales manager told it's the real world contrast, don't know what it means though, the samsung website claims 3000000:1). I also see them on your website though at a price twice the local store (I live in Hungary)

LCD does have another couple of major advantages over CRT, one being LCD images are sharp, whereas CRT's are quite blurry comparatively, and another being LCD's don't shower you in radiation when you use them.

I already spend far too much time on the computer, I don't need cancer too.

Smart take on Sony's OLED blunder here: http://www.gadgetopolis.com/posts/7417

If only they started out in a market where a small screen would be more acceptable.

SED is meant to be after OLED, so thats why this crap happens since they like to milk in sequence rather than do the best they can.

like chumps with LCD thinking it was an upgrade from CRT, still waiting for a proper improvement not just thinner.

Care to explain what negatives SED has compared to OLED besides uber thinness?

SED is not dead. Canon is still developing it as they're no longer being harassed by Applied Nanotech, Inc.

SED, from a simplification standpoint, uses a CRT gun for each individual pixel in the display. It truly can boast a high, NATIVE contrast ratio without any of this bullshit dynamic market speak.

Yes, it is expensive as it hasn't been commoditized yet. However, OLED is nearly in the same boat. It's only been used for small PMP and cell phones. At least Canon demonstrated a 50" prototype whereas you haven't seen anything of that size from the OLED camp (the modular OLED display notwithstanding).

I hear Canon is still developing this technology for video reference monitors in post houses, etc.

Is punctuation going out of style, or is the editor afraid of commas these days?

1,000,000:1 = 1 million to 1

True, there is a small typo there as "1,000,000" is written as "1000,000", but I don't see the problem in understanding this. Sure, if the Inq were a mainland European site then I could understand the comma causing confusion (especially for Germans), but otherwise there's no way that number could ever have meant 1000/1,000.

I hasten to add I mean no flame or troll by this. It was simply to clear up the matter.

And from the link to the XEL-1:
960 x 540
It has to fake its way through all resolutions. What a big bail o' fail.

$3000 for an 11" tv? so basically they were having trouble making them of any reasonable size at the time.

A thousand to one contrast ratio is horrible! Or was he using the backward Yank method and trying to say its a million to one?

LOL, where have you been. SED died a long time ago.
It was very limited in size and more expensive to make. It also had many other negatives when compared to OLEDs.

I want SED. Any news on that? Anyone?