[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]The problem with CRT technology (and SED that you are refering to is one of those) is that it does not scale well on cost or power. I mean, you are essentially talking about have an electron gun for each pixel.... that is a lot of electron guns, and a lot of power usage. It looked absolutely awesome, but OLED brings a similar image quality with high contrast, true 'off' blacks, accurate color, higher possible pixel density, and much lower power usage.Again, those SED sets looked amazing, but OLED is comparable (if not better), while bringing manufacturing, cost, complexity, and power advantages.[/citation]
Yes, but I think that with modern tech, we could get that power problem brought down greatly. The most recent CRT's were only using about 20-40% more power than the LCD displays of their time and that was almost a decade ago. I'm sure that modern tech could overcome the power consumption issues of old CRTs.
My only issue with OLED is that like the rest, it is stuck with native resolutions whereas CRTs can run at a wide variety of resolutions without any sacrifice in quality (which as you clearly understand, was already incredible even with pretty much any decent CRT monitor). Like I said earlier, with an advancement of CRT tech, we could easily have cheap 4K-capable displays, granted unless there's a way to make them digital, they may need an update to VGA or a better analogue replacement for VGA to handle that well.
Perhaps even more important, CRTs are literally the only displays AFAIK that can have good video quality when viewing poor quality video sources. I'd bet plenty that lower than native resolution stuff would look better on a CRT than even on a comparable OLED display.
Heck, it doesn't even need to be CRT- just something that doesn't rely on native resolution for optimal picture quality. Maybe we can use a different technology to replace them like some sort of high-efficiency LED laser dispersal technology to replace those old electron guns.