Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

3M Launches First Pocket Projector

kdawson posted about 6 years ago | from the gadget-holy-grail dept.

Displays 187

An anonymous reader writes "Popsci.com has a writeup on 3M's new pocket projector, the 3M MPro 110, set to launch on September 30. 'In a dark room, it could project a big enough image to be the ultimate cheap-o home theater. The projector will sell for a mere $359. It doesn't have a speaker, so you'll have to get that separately. But really, how good could a microscopic speaker jammed into this thing sound, anyway?'"

cancel ×

187 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

They also have... (4, Funny)

mbstone (457308) | about 6 years ago | (#25004139)

a lollipop with a Batman projector built-in, in case one has the need to summon the Caped Crusader. I saw it at 7-11.

Re:They also have... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25004427)

Am I the only person to have read that as "Pocket Protector"?

Re:Am I the only person ... (1)

rnturn (11092) | about 6 years ago | (#25004623)

No.

As I was scrolling down toward the bottom of the page, I saw that and quickly scrolled back up thinking "Huh? Pocket protector"? (Well, it is "News for Nerds", right?)

Re:Am I the only person ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25004755)

3M Launches First Pocket "Protector"

Great...now I have images a model rocket motor surrounded by dozens of BiC pens and mechanical pencils.
 
/damn it
//must resist temptation to launch pens into orbit

Re:They also have... (4, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005225)

I read it as "rocket projector", and I thought it was amazingly awesome. Like, a projector that flies across the room, shows a 1 second video, and then kills the C.F.O.

Re:They also have... (1)

Debug0x2a (1015001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005697)

Nope, I sure did too. Come to think of it I could probably use a pocket protector...

Re:They also have... (1)

freakdiablo (1358693) | about 6 years ago | (#25004621)

All we need now is a Hotwheels Batmobile and we are ready to roll.

Altoid Amps (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25004143)

Speakers I don't know about, but you can do some pretty cool things with op-amps and some basic circuitry components to build a small amplifier

Re:Altoid Amps (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005229)

Yes. Electronics are small. That's hardly new.

Now, small speakers that don't suck, THAT would be new.

only 640x480 (3, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 6 years ago | (#25004145)

Not going to be much of a cheap hometheater setup at that resolution.

Re:only 640x480 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25004207)

And only 11 inches across

Re:only 640x480 (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | about 6 years ago | (#25004307)

And only 11 inches across

That's under bright lights. They said it was a lot larger with the lights turned down, but they didn't say how big of a picture it was.

Re:only 640x480 (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | about 6 years ago | (#25004713)

I think I'll stay with my Epson projector.

While it's neat that this stuff is small, it's really not anything close to what's required for true home theatre projection. Even my old Benq projector didn't do so well at a native res of 800x600.

I really don't see the need to wank on about how this is a cheap alternative to home theatre projection. You'd be better off with a CRT TV over this device.

Re:only 640x480 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25004235)

That's why they called it a Pocket Projector rather than a Home Theater Projector.

Re:only 640x480 (1)

Mistlefoot (636417) | about 6 years ago | (#25004641)

For sure. Imagine in a few years a laptop the size of a comfy keyboard that projects onto the back of your desk or any convenient wall...... Heck, imagine that right now with a 7" screen 'eee'..... For most things I view a screen for high def isn't needed at all. A laptop and a "monitor" in my backpack though...... Cool

Re:only 640x480 (2, Funny)

Plaid Phantom (818438) | about 6 years ago | (#25004831)

I'm imagining this projector combined with a Bluetooth Laser Keyboard [thinkgeek.com] . With a mini computer made out of Gumstix or something.

Re:only 640x480 (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005721)

I'd much rather take a high definition small sharp screen than a shitty definition huge piece of shit though ;D, guess we are different.

Size isn't all that important, you just have to come closer, that's what I would tell her, if I had a girlfriend that is. (Knowing I'm going towards the off topic moderation I guess I would pick girlfriend as monitors, rather high def and small than low def and huge :D)

Re:only 640x480 (1)

nirvash (1002781) | about 6 years ago | (#25004259)

but thats the resolution of a dvd, right?

Re:only 640x480 (4, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 6 years ago | (#25004271)

Nope. 720 Ã-- 480 for NTSC and 720 Ã-- 576 for PAL.

Re:only 640x480 (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 6 years ago | (#25004363)

Isn't that for widescreen? Don't the 720 pixels get squished down to 640 for 4:3?

Re:only 640x480 (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 6 years ago | (#25004381)

What is recorded 4:3?
Even if you have an old tv, get the theater version, "fullscreen" versions cut out a lot.

Re:only 640x480 (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25004677)

No.

720 x 576 is 4:3 PAL where the pixel aspect ratio is 1.06

16:9 PAL is 720 x 576 where the pixel aspect ratio is 1.42

Re:only 640x480 (0, Flamebait)

entrigant (233266) | about 6 years ago | (#25004705)

um, no. There is no resolution difference between widescreen and fullscreen. A bit is set somewhere that indicates "this is 16:9", and that is all. That is why it is called anamorphic widescreen.

Did you just assume what you said, or is this a case of "I read it so it must be true?"

Re:only 640x480 (1)

gfody (514448) | about 6 years ago | (#25004983)

Re:only 640x480 (1)

entrigant (233266) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005279)

If they're not anamorphic then the black bars are encoded into the video. The resolution is still unchanged. It's just a shame the only options are 16:9 and 4:3. 2.35:1 content also wastes resolution with black bars encoded into the video even if anamorphic, but the authors of 2.35:1 content have little choice.

Re:only 640x480 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25005095)

for ntsc the pixels are narrow - not square - so 720x480 is still 4:3 - since the pixels are about 10% less wide than tall. etc etc see this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_aspect_ratio

Re:only 640x480 (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | about 6 years ago | (#25004275)

It's a step. Projectors for decent home theater are priced pretty nicely now. I think a good 720p projector can be had for about $1000 these days.

Re:only 640x480 (1)

zakezuke (229119) | about 6 years ago | (#25004411)

Not going to be much of a cheap hometheater setup at that resolution.

As others have pointed out, it's a pocket projector, not a HT projector. Also DVD resolution is only about 720 x 480 dropping down to 352 x 480 at LP. While not perfect, nothing to sneeze at considering the price. It would be ideal to catch a vid while camping.

Re:only 640x480 (1)

robotoperasinger (707047) | about 6 years ago | (#25004979)

I only use my home theater for playing 90s FMV point and click games, so it works well for me.

Re:only 640x480 (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005691)

11" is a much bigger factor.

Anyway at washed out at 11" I don't see why anyone would get this, if it's for a toy it must be made much cheaper. You can get an LCD with much better picture obviously for less (if you get 17" ... I don't know where to get 12" or so and they may cost more ;/)

Anyway, the point was that no one can complain that an LCD is inconvenient anyway because how fucking convenient is it to get a 11" single tone and color area and something to put your projector on? Yes that's right! Not very! :D

The eeePC probably outperforms this and can hold it's own movies as well! Not to mention decode them! ;D

First post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25004155)

Wait a minute...

First? Not a chance (3, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 years ago | (#25004167)

We've had them for a long, long time.

Oh, wait that was pocket projectors? I'm sorry. I was only off my one consonant.

Re:First? Not a chance (4, Funny)

Theolojin (102108) | about 6 years ago | (#25004329)

Er, 3M makes rocket fuel? Definitely news for nerds.

Oh, wait. That was pocket projectors. I'm sorry. I was only off by one consonant.

Re:First? Not a chance (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25004409)

Er, 3M makes rocket fuel? Definitely news for nerds.

Oh, wait. That was pocket projectors. I'm sorry. I was only off by one consonant.

Actually one consonant AND one word.

But don't worry about it too much. You really nailed the fail.

Re:First? Not a chance (1)

deepgrey (1246108) | about 6 years ago | (#25004383)

I got the second consonant, but by association, I pictured projector in a guy's shirt pocket. Must pretty darn hard to hold that thing still...

Re:First? Not a chance (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about 6 years ago | (#25004741)

Must pretty darn hard to hold that thing still...

Not if I'm happy to see you.

Re:First? Not a chance (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005501)

It's in his shirt pocket so his avatar is imaged on his neck.

Re:First? Not a chance (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 6 years ago | (#25004433)

I thought it was pocket protectors too when I read the headline.

Re:First? Not a chance (4, Funny)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | about 6 years ago | (#25004503)

We've had them for a long, long time.

Oh, wait that was pocket projectors? I'm sorry. I was only off my one consonant.

I know! 350 bucks and I STILL have ink on my shirt!

That'll teach me to glance at the subject line.

Re:First? Not a chance (2, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | about 6 years ago | (#25005009)

I'm sorry. I was only off my one consonant.

Make that two now.

Re:First? Not a chance (1)

sydbarrett74 (74307) | about 6 years ago | (#25005025)

Well y'know I do need a new pocket protector. Mine's getting a little funky and worn-out.

damn nerds (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | about 6 years ago | (#25004189)

Damn nerds and their goofy pocket projectors...

misread? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25004191)

anyone else read pocket protector?

Re:misread? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25004403)

Look around -- we ALL read it as pocket protector. Some are just too embarrassed to admit it.

Obligaatory (-1, Redundant)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 6 years ago | (#25004201)

Is that a projector in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

What? Someone had to make the joke!

Almost won the UberGeek award (3, Funny)

R2.0 (532027) | about 6 years ago | (#25004209)

Anybody else read that as "3M Pocket Protector"? Because with those specs, that would be AWESOME!

Re:Almost won the UberGeek award (3, Funny)

Technician (215283) | about 6 years ago | (#25004557)

Anybody else read that as "3M Pocket Protector"? Because with those specs, that would be AWESOME!

3M pocket protectors have been with us for many years. To make one, take the sleve from a 3M floppy (5-1/4in) and fold it in half. Fill the front with pens and the back with your calculator and you are all set.

Re:Almost won the UberGeek award (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25004981)

I always wondered who invented the pocket protector. So, it was 3M?

I bow in that general direction...

Re:Almost won the UberGeek award (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | about 6 years ago | (#25005007)

Me too.
Damn. How hard could it be to add space for a few pens?

"3M Launches First Pocket Protector" (0, Redundant)

deft (253558) | about 6 years ago | (#25004243)

Thats what i thought it said...seems more applicable here on /. anyways :)

Re:"3M Launches First Pocket Protector" (1)

oogoliegoogolie (635356) | about 6 years ago | (#25004451)

Me too! I thought it was a historic article and about the first one from the 1930's or whenever.

Re:"3M Launches First Pocket Protector" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005369)

Same here.

Yay lack of editing in TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25004247)

TFA says images were discernible up to 11 INCHES across. I really hope they meant 11 feet, because I'm pretty sure 11 inches wouldn't be very useful.

Re:Yay lack of editing in TFA (1)

Sebilrazen (870600) | about 6 years ago | (#25004291)

...because I'm pretty sure 11 inches wouldn't be very useful.

That's what she said!!!

Uh, what were we talking about?

HR Violation (5, Funny)

nick_davison (217681) | about 6 years ago | (#25004293)

I tried showing one of my female colleagues my pocket projector.

Anyone hiring?

Re:HR Violation (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005563)

Is that a projector in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

Specs (5, Informative)

lordofthechia (598872) | about 6 years ago | (#25004303)

The article didn't list any specs but a little digging found this:

3M MPRO 110M
640x480 Resolution
LCoS Technology [wikipedia.org] (supposedly similar to DLP)
VGA and composite in
150g weight

Considering how small 1080p DLP chips are, and now that they're using LEDs as lightsources, I was suprised that a DLP model wasn't first to market...

That said, 3M has a smaller model for cell phone use: here [pocket-lint.co.uk] .

Re:Specs (4, Informative)

lordofthechia (598872) | about 6 years ago | (#25004497)

Spoke too soon. I knew some friends at TI had mentioned seeing prototypes of compact DLP projectors. Seems they're already marketing them to cell phone companies:
http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/9849/10873/hands-on-dlp-mobile-phone-projector.phtml [pocket-lint.co.uk]

Soon... very soon we'll have our tricorders!

Re:Specs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25004861)

A hi-res version of that would be real handy in a laptop. I can't count all the times there has been a laptop around but no project or monitor available to share the display with everyone else.

Smart phone presentations? (2, Insightful)

crow (16139) | about 6 years ago | (#25004315)

Something like this would be great when combined with a Windows Mobile version of Powerpoint or an iPhone version of Keynote. One more step towards eliminating the need for laptops. (Next up, docking stations for smart phones.)

Smart phone interface! (4, Interesting)

Scubaraf (1146565) | about 6 years ago | (#25004775)

This is the killer app for this product. I work in a hospital - the reason we don't use PDA's or iPhones to interact with our patients' electronic records is that the screen is too small to see the necessary data and the interface is too slow for entering lengthy narrative information. Laptops or tablet PC's could do this, but they are too large to carry around in your pocket. Enter the iPhone with this projector and handwriting or voice recognition. Total game changer in my field.

Re:Smart phone interface! (1)

pentarou (413473) | about 6 years ago | (#25004955)

That sounds pretty awesome, but I see a few limitations: namely the need for an AC adapter and a projection wall, and the fact that hospital thin client workstations are usually already all over the place. Still, I'm with GP: this should be excellent for presentations on the go,--if you have enough battery for it.

Put it in a laptop? (3, Insightful)

AscianBound (1359727) | about 6 years ago | (#25004353)

Interesting... it actually seems like it's small enough that you could fit it in a laptop. That way you wouldn't even have to have mess with carrying around two separate objects (and be bothered to set them up). Though of course the question of how licensing would work comes to mind.

It'd be a nice laptop feature to have though, once the technology matures a little bit.

Who needs sound? (5, Funny)

inode_buddha (576844) | about 6 years ago | (#25004395)

Who needs sound when you project goatse from your cellphone on a crowded bus?

Re:Who needs sound? (4, Funny)

zakezuke (229119) | about 6 years ago | (#25004481)

Who needs sound when you project goatse from your cellphone on a crowded bus?

Who needs a projector when you can setup a wifi hotpoint with everything redirected to a local cache of goatse.

Re:Who needs sound? (1)

Brain Damaged Bogan (1006835) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005359)

true, but I'm sure the folks on the bus would appreciate 2girls1cup a lot more with sound. It's much more tasteful with the audio cranked up.

Freudian slip? (1)

jmelchio (681199) | about 6 years ago | (#25004431)

Strangely enough on first reading I thought this article was about a new 'pocket protector' that 3M had developed. Should I seek some help now?

More ways than one to lose your money (1)

howardtr (1359103) | about 6 years ago | (#25004443)

Even if it does perform well in some environments; being no bigger than a pen, I (and likely most of us) would easily misplace this little gem. There goes $360 ...

What's their market for this thing? (1)

eagl (86459) | about 6 years ago | (#25004447)

I can't imagine what the market would be for this thing. Even if the brightness isn't a problem, the resolution is too low for almost any worthwhile use I can imagine. 800x600 is about the lowest I would want for even the simplest tasks.

Re:What's their market for this thing? (1)

zakezuke (229119) | about 6 years ago | (#25004785)

I can't imagine what the market would be for this thing. Even if the brightness isn't a problem, the resolution is too low for almost any worthwhile use I can imagine. 800x600 is about the lowest I would want for even the simplest tasks.

Well, I can "imagine" LP resolution DVDs, even regular SP dvd with some down sampling. I can really imagine a simple power point presentation being MORE than adequate at 640x480. Not that you don't have a point. WinXP hardly supports 640x480 anymore, in fact it's a bit of a pain if you want to output to a TV.

Re:What's their market for this thing? (1)

eagl (86459) | about 6 years ago | (#25004931)

My job required me to give numerous presentations using projectors for about a year, and even when the audience was just a handful of people I wouldn't have been able to give a reasonable presentation with such a low resolution projector. In every one of the situations where such a small projector would have been useful, I simply printed my slides and handed them out, which was more than satisfactory to my bosses and the presentation audience sitting around the table.

Re:What's their market for this thing? (1)

zakezuke (229119) | about 6 years ago | (#25005149)

My job required me to give numerous presentations using projectors for about a year, and even when the audience was just a handful of people I wouldn't have been able to give a reasonable presentation with such a low resolution projector. In every one of the situations where such a small projector would have been useful, I simply printed my slides and handed them out, which was more than satisfactory to my bosses and the presentation audience sitting around the table.{/quote>

Well, absolutely. If you're looking for a decent presentation you simply can't beat slides for portability and the simple technology required to display them. This would include 35mm slides, while requiring a certain bother and effort to convert letter to slide, certain time and expense, this still is a viable technology. Ektachrome Professional I believe is rated at about 4096x3276, or in paper of about 350dpi or so. When making a copy, expect to lose at least 1/2 that (note, number pulled from arse), but that still about 2048x1638 which isn't too shabby. This presumes a good macro lens and such. When dealing with inkjet, I question whether printable transparencies or a good photo quality paper and slides provide a better result.

Now you or I would likely need at least 800x600, if not higher. I won't argue that. But 640x480 is almost good enough for DVD SP, certainly is good enough for LP DVD. The bulk of a series of slides or transparencies and the relativly simple nature of the equipment is likely to be more bulky than a laptop and a pocket projector. So I will still see it as being useful, if in the spiffy toy class.

Re:What's their market for this thing? (1)

eagl (86459) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005207)

By "slides", I meant "powerpoint slides", not film or transparencies. But your points are very valid.

I also see your point about low-quality DVD, but that seems like a pretty tiny market, people for whom a $350 device to show low quality video to a small group is a better solution than a variety of alternatives.

Re:What's their market for this thing? (1)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005337)

By "slides", I meant "powerpoint slides", not film or transparencies. But your points are very valid.

I also see your point about low-quality DVD, but that seems like a pretty tiny market, people for whom a $350 device to show low quality video to a small group is a better solution than a variety of alternatives.

I was confused on the point of slides. I was unsure if you meant printed out transparencies or slides as in 35mm, where transparencies on an overhead projector are still quite the norm.

I do see a market for such a device. To me, it's a matter of a simple portable DVD player and this projector, or a laptop and this projector. The alternative really is lugging around an LCD screen which to be fair is a tad fragile. Keep in mind that this sort of thing was available in the past in the form of film strips on small projectors or ViewMaster type solutions. You could use it for a small sales presentation, safety film, instructional vid, and quite a few applications where you need to be transportable and don't need really high resolution.

April Fools to Reality in 6 months (1)

GrenDel Fuego (2558) | about 6 years ago | (#25004615)

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/01/1342225

Re:April Fools to Reality in 6 months (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25004829)

Dood u r fucking stupid. It wasn't an april fools joke hahahhahahaha

Value?? guess they think i get the bush tax cut.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25004629)

when it sells for the same price as a quickie printer like 40 bucks call me.. that would be a honest price..

Microscopic Speakers Sound Great (4, Informative)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 6 years ago | (#25004633)

SoundAndVision.com (_Stereo Review_ magazine's website) is giving audiophile raves to a $180, 5.6 inch, 9.5 ounce portable speaker called Foxl [soundandvisionmag.com] . So the answer to the question is that for about $500, a projector and the Foxl could make a microscopic kit into a hugely entertaining movie theater.

Re:Microscopic Speakers Sound Great (1)

Whatsisname (891214) | about 6 years ago | (#25004995)

Thats because they pobably told the audiophiles that it actually cost $18,000

Re:Microscopic Speakers Sound Great (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 6 years ago | (#25005063)

No, if you even bothered to click the link I so helpfully included, you'd see in the first few paragraphs that not only do the audiophile reviewers say it's $180, but they point out that it's a special discount to the public for a limited time, even though it rises to only about $250, and that it's worth something like 10x as much for its quality.

But hey, why not just say something stupid in public?

Killing things (1)

torstenvl (769732) | about 6 years ago | (#25004647)

I know people are complaining about the resolution, but honestly, the only time I want a bigger screen than my monitor is to play huge Quake III Arena on my wall.

(Yes, I know, but it suits my gaming needs. So sue me.)

New geek pick-up line (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25004699)

"Is that a projector in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?"

I read that as "pocket protector." (1, Redundant)

cygtoad (619016) | about 6 years ago | (#25004731)

A $359 pocket protector? Now that is the ultimate geek accessory.

nothing really new here (2, Informative)

cashman73 (855518) | about 6 years ago | (#25004857)

It's interesting. But nothing really new or groundbreaking; we discussed another pocket projector that uses lasers [pcmag.com] back in January of this year [slashdot.org] . We also talked about other small projectors [nytimes.com] on April 1 of this year [slashdot.org] , too.

Re:nothing really new here (4, Insightful)

ndege (12658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005531)

Actually, as another poster pointed out, what is groundbreaking is that this is the first uber-small projector to actually be "for sale". As I understand it, all the other "small" projectors are expensive prototypes used in large corporate peeing contests at trade-shows.

Chevy Volt anyone?

so now that this is the ultimate projector... (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | about 6 years ago | (#25004883)

does that mean regular projectors will come down drastically in price?

didn't think so.

Seriously isn't that how it works? New tech is way expensive and old tech drops in price? This pocket projector seems downright reasonable for what it is.

uh.. nice.. but kinda useless (1)

houbou (1097327) | about 6 years ago | (#25004893)

I'm trying real hard to see how useful this gadget will be, I mean, up to 11 inches widescreen right now is kinda of .. "ahem" limiting. Laptops typically have 14 inches screens and up anyways, so, I can't see how this mini projector can compete with that.

But I suspect that when they can do something like 1280 x 1024, where you get about 3 feet of widescreen view , then it will be truly a useful device to use for meetings.

Cell Phone Terminal Services Client (2, Interesting)

davidwr (791652) | about 6 years ago | (#25004895)

With this and a virtual keyboard [virtual-la...yboard.com] and mouse, you can carry your laptop in your pocket.

What, your laptop doesn't fit in your pocket? Would you settle for a cell phone running something like ThinStation [sourceforge.net] and a cellular-internet hookup? Remember, "The network is the computer."

In Sci-Fi We Trust (1)

Whiteox (919863) | about 6 years ago | (#25004993)

Bill The Galactic Hero, (by Harry Harrison - one of the better sci-fi novels) had a bit where Bill was continually being harassed by a trooper to convert to his religion. Once or maybe twice, the trooper got out a cheap little pocket projector displaying how the apocalypse and heaven would look like for Bill in the future.
I've read a lot of sci-fi, but that's the only book I can remember that uses a pocket projector.
There's a great quote in it that goes something like this:
"You are angry my Son. Anger is the first sign of doubt. And doubt is the first sign of belief!"

Having a pocket projector (-1, Redundant)

Mesa MIke (1193721) | about 6 years ago | (#25004997)

.. is still not as nerdy as having a pocket protector.

Pocket Projector, Pocket Proschecktor... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25005043)

Until it protects my pocket and projects, it is just useless...

Oh, yeah? (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | about 6 years ago | (#25005089)

I got yer pocket projector right here, buddy!

Now built this into cell phones (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005447)

I can't wait to see cell phones of the future

Won't go anywhere (1)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005457)

I don't want to put down their effort, but this is the fifth "first" portable projector I'm hearing about in the last 3-4 years and they all suffer from the same problems: low resolution and extremely low brightness.

One of the pocket projectors was even built into some models of cellphones (the fact we don't hear about such cellphones is a testament about the success of this feature).

The pricetag isn't way too high, but you have to consider that at this low res/lumen, it does perform worse than the screen of a cheap laptop, which costs only $100-200 more, and you already need a laptop to run this projector anyway.

Nerds, huh... don't make me laugh. (1)

F34nor (321515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005479)

Real nerds support Microvision's projector [microvision.com] because they want virtual retinal displays [wikipedia.org] .

How hot does it get? (1)

Rick Richardson (87058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005513)

How hot does it get when projected on a wall?

Say, 4 foot by 6 foot?

you FAIL it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25005571)

failure, its cor4se

And next, arriving in time for Christmas... (1)

Wilson_6500 (896824) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005617)

The 3M Pocket Projector Protector

(sorry)

Phone (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 5 years ago | (#25005623)

How long untill someone figures out how to hook one of these into a phone and laser keyboard ( http://www.virtual-laser-keyboard.com/ [virtual-la...yboard.com] ) to make a mobile computer of light?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>