SED TVs delayed again

[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.