SED TVs delayed again

[RayB]

Looks like we'll have to wait yet again for the final release of SED technology television sets and monitors.  THANKS TO PATENT LITIGATION. *sigh*

http://tech.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1310328.php/SED_TVs_put_on_hold%85_again

(SED television uses electrons just like normal CRT tubes, but they've managed to make it truly "flat". The picture thus is superior to LCD or Plasma)

[ChadTower]

Eh, by the time it actually hit the market, then came down to a price a sane person would pay, there would be something "newer and better" in line anyway.    I wouldn't hold your breath.

[shorthair]

HA. AND HERE IT IS! (Didn't even have to create a new thread. Serendipity, indeed.)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a1e_1180120325

[ChadTower]

Okay, that one has all sorts of potential.  Blade Runner Fifth Element stuff.

[RayB]

whatever. Five years from now everyone who bought a plasma will be dumping their DIM television sets (that's what happens to plasma tvs).  SED will be the viable replacement.

[MikeQ]

whatever. Five years from now everyone who bought a plasma will be dumping their DIM television sets (that's what happens to plasma tvs).  SED will be the viable replacement.

I've had a plasma for more than 5 years and  it looks great.  The bad press about plasma is mostly false.

[shorthair]

Sony would love to come up with something innovative.  They've been bleeding money for years.  More flat screen tech?  Bah.  Wake me up when someone has hologram TVs.

There ya go. Particularly as they've been imagined and speculated about since at least the 40s and 50s in SF, and in a less technical/more metaphorical fashion before that in carnival culture.


RayB: yeah, they will, but not for SEDs. The regular market model is starting to fold. This was predicted in NEUROMANCER ('84).

[boykster]

whatever. Five years from now everyone who bought a plasma will be dumping their DIM television sets (that's what happens to plasma tvs). 

That's funny, I have a 5 year old plasma, that has been used responsibly (ie not left on for hours on end when nobody's watching it) and has about 6000 hours of viewing on it.  Still works wonderfully, no need to "dump" it as you say....

This generation plasma (from 2002) had a 1/2 life lifespan of 15000 hours....that's 7 years at 6 hours a day viewing.  I'm not quite 1/2 way there.  Newer plasmas have a 1/2 life lifespan of nearing 60000 hours...thats 27 years of 6 hours a day viewing.  27 YEARS!  And of course, that's until you reach 1/2 brightness, no reason you can't keep watching that set, simply turning the brightness and contrast up to compensate.

 

I love it how people read/hear something, take it WAY too literally and then spread mis-information.

Don't get me wrong, SED and other thin/low-power/flexible/etc technologies are cool, and I'm interested in the next wave of technologies.....but dissing current tech is pretty silly.

[MikeQ]

I've actually not been too kind to mine and never suffered any problems.  I've left static images on it for the good part of a day and never seen burn in.  Mine for a while acted as a digital picture frame so it was on constantly scrolling through thousands of photos for days at a time.  I ran a calibration DVD on it when I got it 5+ years ago and recently did so again.  Nothing was out of wack at all.  AVS forum has a lot of information and case history on the durability of Plasma.  I read numerous articles before buying mine and most of the bad press came from commercial Plasma sets.  Plasma TV has been around since 1964 and because of the cost, its primary application was in the commercial sector.  These are environments where sets are almost never turned off and display the same images for their lifetime.  Early sets had burn-in issues and loss of brightness.  These problems were engineered out before Plasma went mass market.

[boykster]

Yep, good stuff.  AVS was a major resource for all 3 of my plasma purchases, as well as many other things.  I'm boykster over there too 

I agree that most of the anti-plasma hype is true, albeit with some pretty major asterisks.  Sure, you can get burnin on a plasma, but you have to try pretty hard to do it.  Sure, plasmas will dim over time, but when you actually look at the numbers, it's a LOOONG time before you might see a problem.

Your plasma will break for other reasons well before you notice a substantial decreas in picture quality...

[ChadTower]

That must have been one bigass bag of chips.

[Havok]

I've actually not been too kind to mine and never suffered any problems.  I've left static images on it for the good part of a day and never seen burn in.  Mine for a while acted as a digital picture frame so it was on constantly scrolling through thousands of photos for days at a time.  I ran a calibration DVD on it when I got it 5+ years ago and recently did so again.  Nothing was out of wack at all.  AVS forum has a lot of information and case history on the durability of Plasma.  I read numerous articles before buying mine and most of the bad press came from commercial Plasma sets.  Plasma TV has been around since 1964 and because of the cost, its primary application was in the commercial sector.  These are environments where sets are almost never turned off and display the same images for their lifetime.  Early sets had burn-in issues and loss of brightness.  These problems were engineered out before Plasma went mass market.

The main issue with Plasma however, is that they do degrade in image quality over time. Take a new set and put it next to yours, and you will see a difference. However, it's not as bad as "they" say, and you get used to it, so I'm sure it doesn't look that bad. There is a lot of bad press about plasma, but they can work for a long while if used responsibly. I'll never get one just because it would be left on all the time - more than once I wake up for work, go downstairs, and the damn tv is on.

I'm with pinballjim - get me a hologram tv!!!

[Jeff AMN]

I finally decided to stop waiting and just get a TV now. I was holding out to see how several technologies were going to play out, but I realized that no matter when you buy, the next big thing is just around the corner. You could essentially be waiting forever.

I ended up buying a Samsung HL-S6187. It's a 61" 1080p set that looks downright incredible. It was actually delivered to my home about an hour before the Super Bowl kicked off. After some tweaking with some home theater guides, I can honestly say that I've never seen a better picture on any other set in my life (in person). I wouldn't trade owning this set now for getting something else down the line later.

Seeing hi-def, especially 1080p, content (both movies and games) on the set always manages to wow me, even after all this time.

[ChadTower]

Still don't have HD... we like the Tivos too much.

[Jeff AMN]

Still don't have HD... we like the Tivos too much.

Heh, and the HD TiVo is way too expensive.

I actually have an HD-DVR that doesn't have a monthly subscription. It's 100% free, and it has its own guide that it updates each night. It also accepts cable card. I doubt I'll ever part with that beautiful box sitting under my TV.

[ChadTower]

Home built?

[Jeff AMN]

No, Sony made it a couple of years ago. TiVo kinda pressured big box companies like Best Buy into giving it crap for shelf space. I don't know why it didn't take off. I has full HDMI/component/composite/s-video support, a 250GB hard drive, and a pretty slick interface.

I think it was $400 brand new, and now used ones go for around $500 or higher. I think you can mod them to put in a larger drive, but space has never been an issue. I have all of season 3 of Lost on there in HD, most of the Heroes season in HD, and a few other things. I think I still have like 25% of my space left.

[boykster]

Home built?

AFAIK, only Vista PC's can use cablecards.....considering that you can get a rebate on teh new series 3 Tivos for Father's day that brings the price down to ~$400, that would be a cheaper route than building a dedicated homegrown HD DVR....

[ChadTower]

It would be cheaper, but still too much for not enough, IMO.  Plus we have DirecTV, which complicates the DVR situation.

[Jeff AMN]

Here it is: http://tinyurl.com/2w76h2

Subscription free is what makes it so great. This one is a 500GB model, but according to the description it has "significant scratches or scuffs". I bet it's beat half to hell, but it works.

EDIT: Made the URL shorter to keep from stretching the page.

[boykster]

Oh I hear you, don't worry.  I think that there are a lot of ppl who are still married to their legacy Tivo setups because they're so darn useful, and the move to upgrade all the hardware to HD would be too expensive.

A computer based HD DVR solution for satellite is going to be a non-starter.  Of course you'd have to upgrade your sat. hardware, and then there's the problem of capturing the HD video.  There is no affordable component video input/capture card that can support HD resolutions.  There are a couple that will do 480p, but not HD.

I'm somewhat tempted by the series 3 tivo, but I'm actually pretty happy with the motorola HD DVR I get from comcast....Its no tivo, but it records shows and lets me rewind/ffw/etc.

[ChadTower]

I just took a peek at DirecTV's HD DVR... the site is saying $200 plus free dish upgrade.  That's a lot better than it was last time I looked.

Of course, then I have to pay $10/month just for the priveledge of HD content.  The only HD capable set we have is only 32", anyway, so it wouldn't really be THAT much improvement.  Certainly not $10/month better on top of a $200 upgrade and losing Tivo in that room.

[MustardTent]

I recently switched to DirecTV and got the HD-DVR.  I like it a lot -- it has a great interface.  My only gripe is that there's just a little lag time between button presses and the DVR's reaction to them.

[MustardTent]

How well do third-party DVR's integrate into digital setups?  Like the Sony mentioned above -- If you have digital cable, the provider has control over who gets to connect to their system -- do you get the provider to allow the Sony/Tivo, or do you tune via the cable box and only record on the Sony (or Tivo)?

[ChadTower]

My only gripe is that there's just a little lag time between button presses and the DVR's reaction to them.

That happens with DirecTivos at times, too, depending on the load on the box and the strength of the remote batteries.   

[boykster]

How well do third-party DVR's integrate into digital setups?  Like the Sony mentioned above -- If you have digital cable, the provider has control over who gets to connect to their system -- do you get the provider to allow the Sony/Tivo, or do you tune via the cable box and only record on the Sony (or Tivo)?

I can't speak to the "how well" do they work, but the newer ones integrate with cable systems using a cablecard....

[shorthair]

Seeing hi-def, especially 1080p, content (both movies and games) on the set always manages to wow me, even after all this time.

By games do you mean Mame? If so, any pictures?

Something I've had in mind for many years, and something I bet no one here has realised: there's an issue with holographic display. Not the technology, which actually I'm sure is possible even now, but with POV. How do you set things in a real 3D environment with respect to the viewer? (Note: in books, this is easy.)

And on Tivo, etc. : a dude in the computer section a my local Best Buy said he had at least a terabyte of storage at home; I had the impression that was tentative on getting more. We're already starting to see this - and the whole mainframe concept of the 40s and 50s was grounded in this and seems to be returning, as well as the concept being predicted and displayed in David Brin's EARTH - where we'll simply have access devices (be they terminals or internal), perhaps with some storage, and be able to call up any data at any moment.

[CheffoJeffo]

Seeing hi-def, especially 1080p, content (both movies and games) on the set always manages to wow me, even after all this time.

By games do you mean Mame? If so, any pictures?

For someone who is always quoting somebody else's predictions about the future, you really don't know that much about the stuff you talk about, do you ?

 

[jbox]

And on Tivo, etc. : a dude in the computer section a my local Best Buy said he had at least a terabyte of storage at home; I had the impression that was tentative on getting more. We're already starting to see this - and the whole mainframe concept of the 40s and 50s was grounded in this and seems to be returning, as well as the concept being predicted and displayed in David Brin's EARTH - where we'll simply have access devices (be they terminals or internal), perhaps with some storage, and be able to call up any data at any moment.

Sun tried this and it failed - because CPU's just got faster so much quicker than networking did. Dumb terminals are dead, and will stay dead unless someone manages to discover a zuper-duper wireless system for 100 TB/s networking. Network storage on the other hand is getting better and better. The uni here now has a bunch of OSX Macs that can be auto-magically re-installed, rebooted and ready to go any night they decide just by dropping a new image on the control server (eg. whenever new apps or patches need to be installed). From a design point of view user mobility is maximised when the PC HDD works the same your RAM does as a high-speed storage cache between your CPU and the file server, but there are still waaayyyyy too many applications taking stupid shortcuts and ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- for that system to be fully automagic for anything other than highly homogeneous environments like school computer labs. 

[ChadTower]

That's actually VERY easy to do if you can predict the exact hardware and drivers in every situation.  For an appliance like a Tivo, where the company knows exactly what is in every box, you could easily bounce down a new app or whole drive image whenver you wanted to, if you had good enough access to every box.

[shorthair]

Seeing hi-def, especially 1080p, content (both movies and games) on the set always manages to wow me, even after all this time.

By games do you mean Mame? If so, any pictures?

For someone who is always quoting somebody else's predictions about the future, you really don't know that much about the stuff you talk about, do you ?

 

I have no idea what you're referring to.

[jbox]

That's actually VERY easy to do if you can predict the exact hardware and drivers in every situation.  For an appliance like a Tivo, where the company knows exactly what is in every box, you could easily bounce down a new app or whole drive image whenver you wanted to, if you had good enough access to every box.

Hardware, drivers *and* software. You have to know how to not delete all of the users custom settings for their applications when you upload the new image. The *NIX practise of using ~/.appname is good, but there is still too much stuff in /etc to get away with it at the moment. Groups like GoboLinux are trying to encourage this shift away from the 1980's "OMFGZ the HDD is sooo expensive we need to share competing versions of msfc.dll to save space" towards the < $1/Gb situation we have now that means software should be "installable" and "removable" by simply copying/deleting the app directory and editing your ~/.MIME-TYPES file. 

[ChadTower]

Hardware, drivers *and* software. You have to know how to not delete all of the users custom settings for their applications when you upload the new image.

If it's your known hardware and your known software, it is a given that you have designed it with this function in mind.  If not, you're just not doing a competent job. 

[jbox]

I was originally responding to this comment, which does not include a caveat that there is only one computer manufacturer left in the world, but then again I haven't read that book either:

the whole mainframe concept of the 40s and 50s was grounded in this and seems to be returning, as well as the concept being predicted and displayed in David Brin's EARTH - where we'll simply have access devices (be they terminals or internal), perhaps with some storage, and be able to call up any data at any moment.

Start-to-End suppliers like TiVo and Apple have no excuse about *not* being able to do this I agree, but if more software developers started using the ~/.appname vs "I've hidden entries in C:\Windows\*, C:\Program Files\App\* and the registry as well", then the technical problems with doing this for 3rd party software as well would start to vanish. For non-sales groups like Linux and in-house apps that would make it *vastly* easier to do remote management at the click of a button.

Now if only we can get those MicroKernel's working better... 

[ChadTower]

I see no reason why an application designed to be run on a general purpose PC, something other than a closed appliance (like a Tivo), would be expected to conform to standards that make such things easier for other companies.  Just doesn't make sense from an app architecture and business perspective.

[jbox]

For non-sales groups like Linux and in-house apps that would make it *vastly* easier to do remote management at the click of a button.

It is a well established business fact that established players will make moves against their own long term survival if it can destroy a competitor today. This doesn't stop people from pondering ideas like: "hey, wouldn't it be great if we standardised these tools using, say stdin and stdout, so that we could chain a whole bunch of *different* applications together?" Or the idea that making the system Look & Feel available to 3rd party developers makes your platform less hideous to users? Lots of standardisation happens once users start demanding it, I was simply pointing out to shorty that you wont get his utopian "universal access point" idea working until you get the software developers to stop doing nasty shortcuts just to try and make a few bucks.

[shorthair]

Oh, dude, it's way more clandestine than that. But I'm not even remotely referencing utopia. I think things will become more mainframe-like cos of the physical independence people are progressively wanting from systems. Wireless is a gradual example.

Still, things could end up much like Adamists in Peter F. Hamilton's Confederation Universe, where they have nano systems (he calls them nanonics - cute term, there) with assloads of storage and stuff, yet everything is utterly dependent on networks, particularly building-specific.

Alternatively, I prefer his speculation on the Edenists, also of the same universe.

[boykster]

I seriously doubt we are heading back towards a monolithic mainframe based system. We're definately heading toward distributed computing on a global scale, heck even individual computers themselves are heading toward a "distributed" architecture.

I have multi-terabytes of storage at my house....on 3 large storage arrays on 2 seperate computers.  However, the storage is abstracted from the application. I have a central app server and an array of client "servers" (HTPC's) that rely on the central storage for content, but are not slaves to it. 

[shorthair]

Well, you really have to read the literature to see what I'm talking about. In the case of the Edenists, they all have what's called affinity, which is a sort of psuedo-telepathy aided by quantum entanglement. The classy part is it's completely organic in construction: cloned-neuronal symbionts that exist at the basal ganglia. Then their habitats are living, cognizant, recognised-as-'individuals' structures that also have affinity. So, the system is distributed, yes, but it's so sophisticated that it itself is the mainframe. It's embedded. I mean, nature is a huge embedded system. It's so sophisticated, as it's informed by the physics of the cosmos, that at every level information is embedded its very process.

[Howard_Casto]

I've actually not been too kind to mine and never suffered any problems.  I've left static images on it for the good part of a day and never seen burn in.  Mine for a while acted as a digital picture frame so it was on constantly scrolling through thousands of photos for days at a time.  I ran a calibration DVD on it when I got it 5+ years ago and recently did so again.  Nothing was out of wack at all.  AVS forum has a lot of information and case history on the durability of Plasma.  I read numerous articles before buying mine and most of the bad press came from commercial Plasma sets.  Plasma TV has been around since 1964 and because of the cost, its primary application was in the commercial sector.  These are environments where sets are almost never turned off and display the same images for their lifetime.  Early sets had burn-in issues and loss of brightness.  These problems were engineered out before Plasma went mass market.

The main issue with Plasma however, is that they do degrade in image quality over time. Take a new set and put it next to yours, and you will see a difference. However, it's not as bad as "they" say, and you get used to it, so I'm sure it doesn't look that bad. There is a lot of bad press about plasma, but they can work for a long while if used responsibly. I'll never get one just because it would be left on all the time - more than once I wake up for work, go downstairs, and the damn tv is on.

I'm with pinballjim - get me a hologram tv!!!

This is true....  but so do crt televisions and since sed's are based on the same tech, they probably would too.  The future is already here, and you are probably using it.  LCD televisions still give a superior picture to all three and the image doesn't degrade over a reasonable amount of time.  SED's have great potential in portable "throw away" devices like mp3 players, but not much else. 

Hologram tvs are impossible atm due to teh fact that a tv that projects 3d images into open air having to defy the laws of physics.    You see we can't make a beam of light magically stop projecting 3 feet in the middle of the room or what have you, we can only make it stop by putting something in front to block it.  There are two ways I can think of to "fake it" though.

Method # 1

Create a large, acrylic cube with 3d "pixels" seperated from each other by each one having a varied density.  A cathode gun could fire the image just like on an old school crt tv, only at the corner of the cube and with the power of the beam adjusted as it moves, so each pixel would go further from the back of the cube and thus give the illusion of depth. 

This won't work though because:

a.  It 's really not true 3d, just simulated 3d... at certain angles it'd look terrible and you couldn't layer different objects. 

b.  Making a large cube with that level of complexity would be expensive, really really really expensive. 

c.  Now you have a huge box in your room again... we just got away from that. 

d.  Of course we still don't have a way to film things in 3d, only cg video would be possible.

Method #2

Use a simple pane of glass and a projector.  Put motion sensors all around the glass.  The 3d efffect would be done via software.  Basically a computer would tell what angle you are looking at the glass at and adjust the image accordingly.  Because it would be snesitive enough to detect even the slightest eye movement, it'd constantly change and thus the very flat image would look very real and 3d. 

Of course this won't work either because:

a.  Motion detection software simply isn't there yet, and doesn't look to be for a loooong time.

b.  Computers couldn't keep up with that level of computation on a hd image and won't be able to for some time.  The exception of course would be cg images, which could use traditional 3d rendering techniques with your eyes acting as the controller.

c. The most obvious flaw is that only one person would get the 3d effect.  The others would get a very confusing view that moves around apparently for no reason.

d.  Again, we have no real way to film in 3d... cg images being the exception.



I want magical 3d images too, I'm just saying...don't hold your breath.  It'd take a scientific breakthrough the equivelent of the discovery of electricity to give us the tech/understanding needed to generate a true 3d projection in open space. 

[boykster]

This is true....  but so do crt televisions and since sed's are based on the same tech, they probably would too.  The future is already here, and you are probably using it.  LCD televisions still give a superior picture to all three and the image doesn't degrade over a reasonable amount of time. 

I totally disagree here.  LCD's are clearly inferior on 3 major points vs either plasma OR CRT:

1) Black Level - even the cheapest off-brand plasma will have a deeper black level than a high-end LCD

2) Off-axis color shift and brightness dropoff.  This has gotten better on later gen LCD's, but it still exists.  Plasmas and CRT's, being emissive technologies do not suffer from this very annoying phenomena

3) light uniformity.  This doesnt plague all LCD sets, but many.  Next time you're at a showroom with a bunch of LCD's, put as many of the sets as possible on a "black" screen and look at the even-ness of the screen.  I'll bet that 10-20% of them show some sort of light distribution abnormality. 

LCD totally beats plasma and CRT on sharpness, resolution, and is catching up on "refresh".  LCD's have been notorious for motion blur, but that's gotten much better, so I left it off the list.  The issues I just listed are still real. I'm in the market for a 27"-32" LCD for my gym and I've been to tons of showrooms demo-ing sets. 

 
 

[shorthair]

On 3D, again: well, I said that POV is a critical factor. Also, I think there are two general possibilities:

1. laser beam interference that would create an image in mid air. Maybe this is an absurd idea, but an intuition on my part.

2. some kind of spatial distortion effect. Of course, not only would this require exotic physics, it could also be a weapon. Hmm.

3. Most likely, and near-future-possible: as postulated in, the now relatively old, VIRTUAL REALITY (Reingold, '90), as well as described in Hamilton's Night's Dawn Trilogy - lasers shown into your eyes that create an image. Particularly in the latter case, there are AV pillars and one merely has look at them (it's some kind of omni-directional) to see its content.

[patrickl]

I saw one of those 3D projection screens. Maybe it wasn't a hologram, but it looked distinctly 3D. Just from a single screen and no glasses or such.

[RayB]

Can't believe you guys are arguing about 3D television..... 

Howard, LCD is not superior to CRT. Do you have an LCD monitor? Open up notepad and type letters with straight vertical lines, like this:

||||||||lllliiiii][[[[]]]].....

You'll see some weird colorations appear on the letter edges. Sometimes greenish, sometimes purpleish. On a quality CRT it's sharp, crisp with no such color ghosting.

[patrickl]

Can't believe you guys are arguing about 3D television..... 

Howard, LCD is not superior to CRT. Do you have an LCD monitor? Open up notepad and type letters with straight vertical lines, like this:

||||||||lllliiiii][[[[]]]].....

You'll see some weird colorations appear on the letter edges. Sometimes greenish, sometimes purpleish. On a quality CRT it's sharp, crisp with no such color ghosting.

I'm afraid that is an artifact of cleartype or the way that windows handles fonts or something. I only see the effect when I have my letters anti aliassed. I don't see it in Notepad, but only in the letters you typed on this page. (Only on the left brackets btw)

Or it could be that the LCD screen you saw wasn't synced properly.

[shorthair]

On the Samsung I had a bit back, it didn't have color artifacts in text, but there were gradations of darkness and thickness of the text, at times. Maybe mine was off, also. I thought maybe it was refresh, cos if I put my CRT up to 100hz, it gets ever so slightly water color-looking, which is what my LCD looked like all the time.

[NiN^_^NiN]

Hologram tvs are impossible atm due to teh fact that a tv that projects 3d images into open air having to defy the laws of physics.    You see we can't make a beam of light magically stop projecting 3 feet in the middle of the room or what have you, we can only make it stop by putting something in front to block it.  There are two ways I can think of to "fake it" though.

Actually we have the 3D boxes down here where a video is displayed to you altho it be 2D most of the time its always infront of u no matter how many times u walk around the cube and its flating in air (works the same way as thoese clocks that co back n forth really fast to show u the time yet its only like 4 leds it's quite cool

They did have a 3d object being displayed too like a vase and it looked like a transparent vase cause it was 3d and did look real 3d wise.

But yes we already have holograms tv's that are showing the tv in mid air you can walk through it and do anything to it but it is 2D

If u can even remember seaquest DSV they had this technology back then what it was is a projector projecting onto a fog cloud coming from the roof (this is used alot still they use thoese ultra sonic things in water to create the mist and blow it through a vent to get it to stay flat)

But the new technology for this is an ionised air i don't think thats it but the unit is on the roof and what it does is it create the air below it to reflect light so a projector image form a normal projector is possible to stop in mid air

It's the same as the fog method except its invisible to the eye so no1 would know i can't remember what it was tho something to do with the water in the air i think

But the technology is here but it's only available in 2D so far

[shorthair]

Yeah, I can see that. Tuning the beams so they reflect, or refract, off of certain molecules, etc. You got any links for that ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---?

[RandyT]

LCD televisions still give a superior picture to all three and the image doesn't degrade over a reasonable amount of time.  SED's have great potential in portable "throw away" devices like mp3 players, but not much else. 

LCD is backlit by special lighting.  When that lighting dims with age or burns out with no exact replacement available, you have the same longevity problems.  SED's and similar technologies in larger formats have great potential in any video application.  Same brightness, viewing angle, response time and black levels as CRT's but on a thin, lightweight substrate.  All things an LCD have had a terrible time overcoming issues with.

Hologram tvs are impossible atm due to teh fact that a tv that projects 3d images into open air having to defy the laws of physics.    You see we can't make a beam of light magically stop projecting 3 feet in the middle of the room or what have you, we can only make it stop by putting something in front to block it.

You don't need to make the light stop in the middle of the room.  You only need to make the observer believe that it does.  Multi-observer systems are the problem.

Of course we still don't have a way to film things in 3d, only cg video would be possible.

Actually, filming in 3D for a single viewer system is not difficult by todays standards.  You don't need any information about occluded objects in the scene, so simple depth mapping, using ultrasonics / IR lasers / etc.,  created based on the viewers angle of incidence and a synchronized video for surface mapping would suffice.  Or you could just use two cameras that simulate human eyes and use software to create the depth map based on the differences between the two images using edge detection, etc...

I want magical 3d images too, I'm just saying...don't hold your breath.  It'd take a scientific breakthrough the equivelent of the discovery of electricity to give us the tech/understanding needed to generate a true 3d projection in open space. 

This is true.  I worked in 3D for about 5 years and was part of a development team for a patented 3D display system that was based on my optical configuration.  There are some strange ways of creating three dimensional imagery out there, but most focus on the perception of the viewer, rather than trying to re-create virtual solid objects in the middle of the room.  The latter seems to always be the least successful and most expensive means of creating the effect, and most of us here won't live to see the day when this form becomes a reality.  Think "flying cars".

RandyT

[shorthair]

I'm waiting for the day Tesla is rediscovered and not shunned by the scientific and technical communities.

[ChadTower]

Eh, they never had much going for them other than the occasional cover song that sold singles.

[shorthair]

Hah hah hah hah hah hah....you chucklehead.

[NiN^_^NiN]

Yeah, I can see that. Tuning the beams so they reflect, or refract, off of certain molecules, etc. You got any links for that ---Cleveland steamer---?

Well i found 2 video clips of the same product altho the one i saw they had prrfected the stream of air it was trying to force the air out of the small vent to be as flat as possible thats was the problem for them and would still be a problem if they had drafts in the room so id think it have to be forced out of the unit quite fast

http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/07/24/video_display_interface_of_the.htm

Also seems there using IR beams to work out where ur finger is in the air so u can use it as a touch screen.

How it works is condensed air which is just air with water condensation basically

Here is another video of it


Im sure i seen them improve the wall if air so it streams out evenly

But for a DIY-er to do this u get them pond foggers (which are just ultrasonic devices underwater that vibrate the molocules so much it turns into a white mist) get afew of them in a small tub of water and then use some PC fans to suck the mist and blow it out of a thin vent to get it to flow like a stream and u have ur own kind of display just use a standard projector (i have done this before with my home projector and its quite cool) but these ones are alot more complex with making it invisible

If you want to test it and have a projector get some dry ice and poor alil but of water ontop (i think thats how u make the cold fog go more but i dont have dry ice down here so i've never done it) and hold it infront of the projectors image and your now gonna have it in mid air

[RandyT]

IMHO, this is one of the more silly attempts.  Anything that relies on there NOT being air currents is doomed for any serious use.  Neat advertising gimmick, but that's about all.  I mean, c'mon, touting it as "touch" technology when your finger screws up everything everything on the "screen" above it?   

Or how about this secenario:  "Let's play a game!  Ok, but we have to hurry up.  My monitor is almost out of water!"   

RandyT

[NiN^_^NiN]

There is a difference between putting ur finger just before the fog and throwing ur whole hand in lol

And the technology doesn't use a water tank or anything like that (there already is water in the air) it just needs electricty i said the easy DIY way was too use water and some ultrasonic devices

there are ones that need supply of water but if it's in ur house your gonna have it hooked up to a water mains anyway.

Also the fog ones are have the basic components of a laminar, non-turbulent airflow which has the thin fog injected inside the laminar flow. Created this way, the fog is an internal part of the laminar airflow, and remains thin, crisp and protected from turbulence.

Unless a big gust of wind comes in blowing it wont budge alot of people walking past it at say a show or convention
wont make it go wavy or just wreck the screen.

This is the newer technology i was talking about where they perfected the turbulance factor.

Sure it's not the as good when compared to a LCD screen but without having something solid as the screen it gives a 3d look and would be key in other basic 3D technology.

Anyway the only problem this has is trying to get the uniformed pattern when somethings projected and really i think it's a great idea for shows and cool for at home use too

[shorthair]

I wouldn't go as far as Randy in my skepticism of the practicality of this example...but it does raise a fundamental question I think no one at least here has noticed: that any spatial projection, regardless of technique used, is going to be governed by local atmospheric conditions. Which is why - barring something like Hamilton's affinity - wireless tightbeam accessed via neural connection is best. (Of course, there is the question of EM radiation being received so close to brain matter....)

[NiN^_^NiN]

I do know that the fog screen has been used at the enterence of a few conventions and it didn't have any problem with the huge amount of people walking through it.

The laminar air flow design is perfect for inside as it's strong enough not to be moved by the outside conditions unless it was damn windy.

But the few things i have seen them say for uses are of course at conventions who wouldnt wanna walk through a screen other is for clothes shopping altho im not to sure bout that one but say u walk in u can get the cloth projector over your body to see how it would look on you (as it's clear then it would look 3D) only problem is it's invisible so id say to do that it you would have to be half naked for it to work well it be more for in the dressing rooms id say.

It be great at a video game convention think of a 2d ninja or any character standing in mid air there doing some moves it would look 3D to us and it be quite cool i would think if it was hooked up to sensors and could tell if there was someone infront of it could have it as a salesman lol

[RandyT]

There is a difference between putting ur finger just before the fog and throwing ur whole hand in lol

And the technology doesn't use a water tank or anything like that (there already is water in the air) it just needs electricty i said the easy DIY way was too use water and some ultrasonic devices

Even the joker in the video was poking his finger into it occasionally.  Instinctively, people try to touch the floating object.  Seen it thousands of times.  Also, dry environments will have less water in the air, so relying solely on the moisture content present in an unknown environment may present a performance issue.  I don't know that it would, but if it relies on water particulates to reflect an image, and fewer particulates are present, it just seems logical.

Ok, I'll admit that I'm a bit of a pragmatist at times.  But seriously, outside of the "Hey, that's a neat trick" factor, what are the real benefits of this laminar projection technology?  And consider this:  With this type of display, there is no black.  Even dark colors can vanish or become hard to see.   Black becomes the "transparent" color, mainly because you are working with pure light and black is the ultimate lack thereof.  If you view the "screen" with a white wall on the other side, the image starts to wash out because the white light reflected from the wall is added to the light of the image.  Too much light in the room screws these types of displays up big time.  No darks, means no contrast.  Also consider that you are talking about a paper thin plane in space.  So no "roundtable" discussions with a 3D floating object in the middle.  Just a flat image that one side of the table sees normally, the other side sees in reverse, and everyone else gets a very distorted view of.

I do apologize for the skepticism.  I worked in "the biz" for too long and sometimes forget the novelty of seeing these types of things for the first time.  But I'd like you to consider something nonetheless.  Many of these 3D technologies have been around for a long time.  Some based on ideas that have been around since the 40's.  Every one of them, without exception, have some damning flaw that keeps them from being adopted for serious use by a broad market.  It can be high cost, poor image fidelity, poor fields of view, eye strain, excessive maintenance, and so on.  Most have more than one of these problems.

I have no doubt that, in the right settings, these types of devices can get attention and be novel approaches to advertising campaigns and so-on.  But they lack broad consumer appeal, which is absolutely necessary to get funding for mass production, and thereby get the prices down to where you might be able to afford one.  But even if you could get one reasonably, I truly believe that when you run out of people to show your new toy to, you'll start cursing the shortcomings of these types of displays.

Just my opinion

RandyT

[RayB]

Which is why - barring something like Hamilton's affinity - wireless tightbeam accessed via neural connection is best. (Of course, there is the question of EM radiation being received so close to brain matter....)

Do you enjoy making ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- up?

[shorthair]

Which is why - barring something like Hamilton's affinity - wireless tightbeam accessed via neural connection is best. (Of course, there is the question of EM radiation being received so close to brain matter....)

Do you enjoy making ---Cleveland steamer--- up?

Which part?

[CheffoJeffo]

Which is why - barring something like Hamilton's affinity - wireless tightbeam accessed via neural connection is best. (Of course, there is the question of EM radiation being received so close to brain matter....)

Do you enjoy making ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- up?

I just think that sometimes shorty has trouble seperating reality from the tons of sci-fi that he obviously reads.

[shorthair]

Stephen Hawking is quoted as saying SF (vs sci-fi, mind) is the only literature worth reading, anymore.

[CheffoJeffo]

Stephen Hawking is quoted as saying SF (vs sci-fi, mind) is the only literature worth reading, anymore.

Yeah, but he is well-adjusted and smart enough to be able to separate the science from the fiction ...

[shorthair]

Well that's a cop-out. And avoids the point.

[CheffoJeffo]

Well that's a cop-out. And avoids the point.

No, MY point was that you have exactly that problem.

[shorthair]

Evidence? You made a claim so you have to substantiate it. List fashion, vs mere description would be appropriate.

[CheffoJeffo]

Evidence? You made a claim so you have to substantiate it. List fashion, vs mere description would be appropriate.

OK ....

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?action=profile;u=13030;sa=showPosts

 

[shorthair]

Disqualified. You just commited a logical fallacy. There's no explanation of the data presented.

[CheffoJeffo]

Disqualified.

Lookout --- lieutenant shorty is laying down the law ... 

You just commited a logical fallacy. There's no explanation of the data presented.

Why do you keep trying to apply argumentation theory to everybody's postings, yet completely ignore the same theory (along with cohesion, grammar and comprehension) when you post ?

BTW -- there are provisions in argumentation theory for data where the conclusion would be evident to a reasonable person.

You try so hard to look smart.

 

[shorthair]

Oh come on, baby. Just cos you know more than I do in those things, and I'm not being sarcastic, doesn't mean you can't make simple mistakes. And you're still avoiding. Thas okae, ah noo you'll be back fer soom mo, luv. And p'raps ya ken tutor me on those.

[CheffoJeffo]

.

[shorthair]

Yes.

[RayB]

I just want to know what the ---fudgesicle--- is "Hamiliton's affinity" ??

[shorthair]

Hahah. Nothing like or even related (well, not really) tp a Hamiltonian. I mentioned Peter F. Hamilton's speculation on a kind of communication device, a type that I favor the idea of. That's all.