Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Forget LCDs and LEDs, Here Come LPDs

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the i'll-believe-it-when-i-see-it dept.

Displays 244

waderoush writes "It's not every day you hear about a brand new display technology, but San Jose, CA-based Prysm came out of stealth mode yesterday to talk about its plans for manufacturing laser phosphor displays, or LPDs. The new devices, which the company will show off at the Integrated Systems Europe trade show in Amsterdam next month, reportedly use 25 percent as much electricity as equivalently-sized LCD screens. And they should be easier to manufacture too, since they don't have a backplane of transistors like LCD screens: the image is generated by a laser beam that sweeps across phosphor stripes under the control of a scanning mirror. The venture-funded startup, which plans to build and sell LPD screens under its own brand, is promoting them as a low-cost, low-maintenance way to display information in lobbies, airports, broadcast studios, command centers, and the like."

cancel ×

244 comments

How Thick is the Display? (5, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750822)

And they should be easier to manufacture too, since they don't have a backplane of transistors like LCD screens: the image is generated by a laser beam that sweeps across phosphor stripes under the control of a scanning mirror.

Of all the information I can find [prysm.com] , no one is addressing the thickness of the display unit. I'm not saying it can't be done in close quarters but I'm basically inquiring how thick the unit must be in order for a laser beam to sweep across the phospher stripes that comprise the screen? Are we talking about moving back towards the sizes of back projector displays? Because it might not matter how efficient or awesome the picture display is to the consumer.

I guess that might explain why they're targeting airports and malls and not your living room.

I believe this particular patent image illustrates what I'm wondering about [google.com] (Roger Hajjar is one of Prysm's founders).

CA-based Prysm came out of stealth mode yesterday

No one can fly under the radar when they need to patent their invention:
Laser displays using UV-excitable phosphors emitting visible colored light [google.com]
Laser vector scanner systems with display screens having optical fluorescent materials [google.com]
Optical designs for scanning beam display systems using fluorescent screens [google.com]
Phosphor Compositions For Scanning Beam Displays [google.com]

Prysm's founders (Amit Jain and Roger Hajjar) have had their names on quite a few display related patents since 2005. I'm excited a small startup can enter this market but I'm skeptical of the marketability due to the one drawback: a step backwards in compactness and style.

Re:How Thick is the Display? (2, Informative)

Zediker (885207) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750908)

They shouldnt be any worse than the existing DLP displays which are quite thin since they both utilize similar technology: scanning micro mirrors.

Re:How Thick is the Display? (0)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751108)

No, DLP is one mirror per pixel, right? This is one scanning laser per display. It has to be far enough back to reach all edges.

The comparison to old CRTs is the first thing I thought of, and the few initial "luggables" with them were by no means laptops.

Re:How Thick is the Display? (1)

Creepy (93888) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751354)

my first thought was I'd need to care about VSYNC and HSYNC again. It wouldn't need to be as big as old CRTs - those use an electron gun and electromagnets to move the beam - all they need is some way for the laser to target each pixel on the phosphor at a suitable speed.

Re:How Thick is the Display? (1)

mattcasters (67972) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751512)

Why artificially limit yourself to a single laser? In fact the patent application (eldavojohn's post) mentions "laser arrays with N lasers".

Re:How Thick is the Display? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30751824)

You have to worry about HSYNC and VSYNC with LCDs too. Try driving one at values outside the standard 60Hz-75Hz VSYNC range for example. At least CRTs give you more flexibility (my 1997 Hitachi goes up to 150 Hz for nice and small input latency).

Re:How Thick is the Display? (5, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751610)

It has to be far enough back to reach all edges.

No, it just has to have some mirror arrangement that allows it to reach the whole screen. I don't see any reason why the laser has to strike the phosphor at anything close to a perpendicular alignment.

-jcr

Re:How Thick is the Display? (4, Interesting)

cool_story_bro (1522525) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752118)

I don't see any reason why the laser has to strike the phosphor at anything close to a perpendicular alignment.

The angle at which the beam strikes the phosphor would determine the shape of the intersecting region, which may be difficult to correct for. However, a small mirror near each "pixel" that redirected the beam straight at the phosphor would likely correct the situation without taking up too much extra space.

Re:How Thick is the Display? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30751316)

By existing you mean long outdated right? They haven't sold DLP TVs for eons. Time to upgrade son.

Re:How Thick is the Display? (1)

caladine (1290184) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751458)

Quite thin? Every DLP TV I find listed is at least 10 inches thick, if not more. Check out the Mitsubishi models. While most are huge (and cheap for the size) they are anything but thin.

Re:How Thick is the Display? (4, Insightful)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750978)

At the end of TFA, they claim that conceptually it would work for a laptop display; so it must be pretty thin. The reason to target big displays before worrying about home TV's seems to be that the cost of manufacture is less an issue there. Until they can do relatively cheap mass-production, they won't be able to address the TV market.

Also, the headline notwithstanding, this may face tough competition in the TV market from advances in LED-type displays.

Re:How Thick is the Display? (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751986)

Strikes me that we're back to the scanning electron gun, but this time it's photons... there will be a "whirr" from the scanning mirrors, otherwise it sounds like a reasonable idea - just need to put the phosphor on a reasonably rigid substrate and you're good to go. They'll never be as thin (or flexible) as my current LED backlit notebook screen.

Re:How Thick is the Display? (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752150)

It does sound like a fairly sensible idea, although the article doesn't appear (from my admittedly quick glance) to mention refresh rates or resolutions, which both become more significant issues in computer monitors than airport info displays.

Re:How Thick is the Display? (1)

ari_j (90255) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750998)

If they can find a market where energy efficiency is more important than thickness and durability (another issue that I would be concerned about in anything with moving parts, mirrors, etc.), then they should be able to do alright with their product. I am just not sure I can think of a market where durability is less important than energy efficiency.

Re:How Thick is the Display? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751290)

I am just not sure I can think of a market where durability is less important than energy efficiency.

Greenwashing market.

Re:How Thick is the Display? (2, Interesting)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751130)

Yeah, but cost is also a factor in a lot of cases, and this could well be an acceptable compromise for a lot of people.

These are supposedly a lot cheaper to manufacture and draw a lot less power, so if you are willing to put up with something that has some depth, you may be able to skip the 55 inch screen and go straight to 70 inches for the same money, and lower long-term costs of operation. Or get that 55-inch screen and have $800 left to buy a whole lot of movies to play on it.

A lot of people still have CRT or back-projection televisions. Something like this could appeal to those people, because they are already used to their TV having some depth anyway, and you can get them to high def in an affordable way. I have to imagine a laser projection could at least be slimmer than a CRT.

Plus, CRTs are HEAVY in addition to being bulky. It sounds like something like this would be a box filled with mostly air, so it's at least easier to move around.

Actually, if you made 4 lasers (or 1 laser with a very clever series of 4 mirrors), each one could be responsible for 1/4 of the screen and you'd end up with something shallower than a 1-laser rig. 16 lasers or mirrors would make it shallower still. But then you're starting to draw as much power as an LCD and manufacturing costs are probably as high or higher. So there are adaptations to this technology that could make them slimmer, if you're willing to pay for them, and if you don't apply them to the point you are exceeding the cost of LCD.

Re:How Thick is the Display? (2, Informative)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751420)

Would you draw more power with 16 lasers? Each laser needs to cover only 1/16th of the area so theoretically also 1/16th of the power (for the same overall brightness).

Re:How Thick is the Display? (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751714)

Don't know, it was just an off-the-cuff theory as to how to optimize the technology and make it thinner.

I suspect 16 lasers could at least each scan at 1/16 the speed of a single laser, but brightness loss in a laser is far from linear, so I don't think you could drop the power to 1/16 per laser.

Re:How Thick is the Display? (1)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751136)

FTFA:

Moreover, Prysm's LPD screens--which the startup plans to manufacture at a plant in Concord, MA--can be built in any size or shape, from square tiles to long, <b>thin ribbons</b>, meaning they could turn up almost anywhere someone

Re:How Thick is the Display? (1)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751178)

Yeah, I meant to bold THIN RIBBONS.

Is that THIN enough for you??

Re:How Thick is the Display? (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751320)

Interestingly, that only means one of it's dimensions has to be thin. Which would probably be H, although in certain asian countries L would be more popular to use. D isn't necessarily affected.

Re:How Thick is the Display? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751536)

Prysm's LPD screens

The screen, not the whole system. This is a projector system. The question is, and remains, how much separation is required between the projector and the screen?

Re:How Thick is the Display? (1)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751230)

It's a bigger step backwards than you might think. There were big screen TV systems attempted long before color TV that used essentially the same setup, but using beams of ordinary light instead of lasers. They actually worked surprisingly well for the electromechanical kludges that they were, aside from the size issue. In fact, the degree of similarity is enough, IMHO, to count as prior art.

Re:How Thick is the Display? (1)

Funnnny (1409625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751268)

According to the paragraph, "We can make it as big as you can imagine", I think it'll bigger than CRTs

Similar to LaserVue? (2, Interesting)

RingDev (879105) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751308)

If it is similar to Mitshibishi's LaserVue http://www.mitsubishi-tv.com/product/L65A90 [mitsubishi-tv.com] a 65" display would be around 10" deep.

-Rick

Re:How Thick is the Display? (3, Interesting)

stevew (4845) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751326)

Well - I designed what would be portion 320 in the diagram, the image modulation system for a scanning LED TV. The first problem was that LEDs were too dim at the time. The lasers in this system against a phosphor take care of that issue. The second issue you have is what is called the pin-cushion effect. As you scan the laser over the surface of the rotating polygon, it will tend to modulate the length of the scanline making the picture look like a pin cushion. I had a way to fix this in the modulation controller - can't talk about HOW to fix it ;-) Just know that is a pretty big problem to overcome.

Once you have a method to overcome the pin-cushion effect, then you need to have to have a way to align the TVs in production (another REAL headache I didn't come up with a solution for..but then we only got to the prototype stage so didn't have to face that issue.)

Finally - there is the issue of NOISE. Rotating mirrors can be REALLY loud. Our prototype sounded like a jet engine when we spooled up the motors. The precision optics are also expensive. The mechanical engineers believed they could build a much quieter mirror assembly - maybe with air bearings.

So there are a lot of real - practical - tough design problems with this approach.

Finally - I expect it to be a relatively BIG TV.

It's a neat technology - but I don't believe there is any market for it.

Re:How Thick is the Display? (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751690)

would MEMS mirrors fix most of that?

i think there as a projector the size of a deck of cards showed of at CES that used lasers and a MEMS system to project the image.

Re:How Thick is the Display? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30751478)

a step backwards in compactness and style.
More important than compactness and style, I'd go with the energy efficiency, but also weight. I wouldn't care about carrying a big box of cotton instead of a small box of lead. If the big one is certainly lighter and produces quality results I could go for the big box (I don't see correlation between compactness and style btw).

They just need to market it right. I could come up with a car analogy, but I'd leave it to you or the caranalogyguy.

Re:How Thick is the Display? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30751790)

...no one is addressing the thickness of the display unit.

It all depends on the size of the shark used.

Re:How Thick is the Display? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30751860)

"Thin" CRTs from a few years back got down to 16" thick [engadget.com] . Without the need for powerful magnets, you could probably use even thinner displays assuming you had accurate enough galvanometers for addressing edge pixels.

I'm surprised Slashdotters haven't jumped up+down (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752062)

I believe this particular patent image illustrates what I'm wondering about [google.com] (Roger Hajjar is one of Prysm's founders).

So let me get this straight- they've patented a design that's already used for laser shows, CRTs, and thousands of persistence of vision devices?

Argh (3, Funny)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750838)

I had a similar idea, only instead of a scanning mirror, I was going to use chunks of neutronium to bend the light beams. I've had a little trouble sourcing the materials, though...

Re:Argh (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751096)

Never mind, when I get my idea for a warp drive going it should be simple. I just have to come up with an antigravity device, a tractor beam and a zero-point energy device to power it and sourcing neutronium will be easy.

Alternatively CERN probably have a few containers of that, right next to their antimatter containers. Give them a call and they'll probably pop over in their scramjet spaceplane and let you have a few tonnes.

Re:Argh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30751810)

"I had a similar idea, only instead of a scanning mirror, I was going to use chunks of neutronium to bend the light beams. I've had a little trouble sourcing the materials, though..."

That's only a small part of your problem. Once you get the materials and have the product ready for market, I'm not sure people will be willing to pay 1000x the cost of the product in "shipping and handling".

Re:Argh (1)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752022)

Excellent point! If I was feeling exceptionally snarky, I'd call FedEx and ask them for their freight rates in Earth masses.

Re:Argh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30751888)

Don't worry I have a time-machine that can fetch all your materials from the future.
The problem I have yet to solve is it needs 20 years to travel 631 138 519 seconds into the future...

LPD screen or LPD screen? (0)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750906)

So is this a new technology or is this the same as the LPD screens you can buy today?

If it is new, it is unfortunate not only to reuse an acronym, but reusing one in the same domain.

If it the same, what is the news?

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30751050)

Sorry, what is an LPD screen you can buy today? Can you give me a link? I am curious what it is.

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen? (1)

rsborg (111459) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751170)

So is this a new technology or is this the same as the LPD screens you can buy today?

Perhaps you meant DLP [dlp.com] ? Not the same as LPD but agreed, it will be confusing.

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen? (5, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751444)

If it is new, it is unfortunate not only to reuse an acronym, but reusing one in the same domain.

There are only 17,576 three letter acronyms. We've been warning people for years of the need to upgrade to TLAv6, which allows for a wider range of three letter acronyms, including punctuation and numbers as well as unicode support. But many major buzzword providers have refused to upgrade. The last unique TLAs will be depleted within 18 months in our field. Thanks to AAT (Acronym Address Translation), there are already far more TLAs than there are available spaces -- we've been using CIAR (Classless Inter-Acronym Routing) to separate namespaces based on subject matter and field, but it's only a matter of time before even that fails.

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30751584)

You sir are a gentleman and a scholar, you made me smile on this dismal day!!!

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen? (4, Funny)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751912)

A gentleman? I think you missed a minor detail there...

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen? (1)

cmiller173 (641510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751902)

It is for this sort of funny that the moderation system should go to 6. Very good sir.

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen? (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752012)

Epic funny...

You're up there in the running with http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=981505&cid=25217393 [slashdot.org] and http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=981353&cid=25214739 [slashdot.org] (warning: all comments need to be read in the context of the corresponding OP's and their particular threads.)

Of course there's also http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1130061&cid=26877133 [slashdot.org] but he utilized vulgarity to enhance his humor.

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen? (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752136)

I'm sorry, but CIAR? When trying to parse this, all I got was Central Intelligence Agency and a 1 character buffer overflow.

Clearly I need an upgrade.

LPD? (0)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750922)

Are you sure they didn't just mistype DLP.

Good one! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30750938)

"It's not every day you hear about a brand new display technology"

And to this I say: good one, you funny guy!

do not want (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750954)

guaranteed to be thicker than LED or LCD, and with phosphor delay; I want LED so that I can have [effectively] instant transitions. we can get back the delay effect with processing, but you can't eliminate phosphor delays when you've got phosphors.

Re:do not want (1)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751386)

guaranteed to be thicker than LED or LCD, and with phosphor delay; I want LED so that I can have [effectively] instant transitions. we can get back the delay effect with processing, but you can't eliminate phosphor delays when you've got phosphors.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like we'll see OLED any time soon. It still has longevity issues and burn-in is nasty. We'll see what happens 3-4 years from now, but as far as computer monitors are concerned, I don't think OLED is viable... So we're stuck with poor LCDs.

Re:do not want (4, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751770)

WTF... there was a time when people didn't want to move to LCD because of motion blur issues, problems that CRTs, a phosphor-based technology, didn't have. Now you're saying the exact opposite is the case? *boggle*

Re:do not want (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752180)

As a company, they're targeting the deep pocket markets (big displays - really big from the sound of the article). I don't read anything particularly expensive in their description, maybe the high power laser (or the fact that they're manufacturing in Massachusetts), for now they're touting low energy to operate and component longevity as their value-adds.

In other words, the investors don't give a damn about selling you an inexpensive display for your peasant self.

thickness (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30750964)

Probably wont get much thinner than 5"-6" but some of us don't care much about depth. All else being equal, if it's price is lower and it uses 1/4 the electricity, I'm interested.

Similar idea (5, Funny)

Walterk (124748) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750972)

I had a similar idea once, except using electrons instead of lasers. It also required a vacuum tube for the electrons to travel through. I called it the Fluorescent Electron Cathode Konduit, or FECK for short. After considering it a while, I thought the concept was rather ludicrious and without merit, so abandoned it.

Re:Similar idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30751264)

I had the same exact idea as you, only I called it Fluorescent Ulectron Cathode Konduit.

Re:Similar idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30752120)

Dang, you beat me to the, "why don't we use electrons instead of lasers' comment.

Re:Similar idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30752148)

Since the new buzzword is Unobtainium, maybe you should try that instead of electrons.

Not only will it be hipper and cooler, but the acronym will be so much better!

Hmm (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751010)

"Do not look at LPD with remaining eye."

They've been shooting lasers into people's eyes and using them for display for some time and in every single application of the technology, there's the possibility that it can be used to damage the vision of the user if precautions aren't taken. I'm wondering what the small print for these devices will be.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30751224)

"Do not look at LPD with remaining eye."

They've been shooting lasers into people's eyes and using them for display for some time and in every single application of the technology, there's the possibility that it can be used to damage the vision of the user if precautions aren't taken. I'm wondering what the small print for these devices will be.

"Do not break screen and stare into laser"?

Re:Hmm (2, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751346)

"Do not break screen and stare into laser"?

"I can't let you do that, Dave."

Re:Hmm (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752156)

On the other hand, I just filed patents for a new method of laser eye surgery.

Simply sit there, watching American Idol unblinkingly like the fat slob you are.

The integrated web cam will composite an image of your retina from millions taken over a period of weeks. Then, the lasers will flash short, invisible, corrective pulses as you stare at Ryan fucking Seacrest.

Eyedol on Idol - the ONLY way to improve your vision as you watch tv. Exclusively on FOX.

Command Centers (1)

Shadowruni (929010) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751020)

Screw a command center, though whenever I'm evaluating a new display tech that IS the first thing that comes to mind.

I'm waiting on my transparent screen that displays XXXGA graphics and yet somehow I don't get distracted by everything happening BEHIND the screen. (

Looks cool on screen but just like Gorilla arms from Minority Report, I think it wouldn't really be practical unless you....)

Re:Command Centers (1)

BronsCon (927697) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751806)

If it was displaying XXX graphics, I doubt you'd be distracted by ANYTHING else going on.

"Command centers" (4, Funny)

ewg (158266) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751044)

About time! I'm sick of the lackluster displays in my command center.

phosphor burn? (4, Insightful)

AmericanGladiator (848223) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751068)

I didn't see any mention in the article - will it have this horrible weakness that CRTs had?

Re:phosphor burn? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751410)

I didn't see any mention in the article - will it have this horrible weakness that CRTs had?

Well, the HV supply for my old CRTs is a couple watts, my LCD backlight displays are a couple watts, I'm guessing this thing will require a couple watt laser for equal brightness. So if the scanning mirror jams in one spot, a couple dozen focused watts will burn a hole clean thru the screen, not just discolor the phosphor. That'll be exciting.

Re:phosphor burn? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751604)

So when the scanning mirror jams in one spot, a couple dozen focused watts will burn a hole clean thru my eyeball

Fixed that for you. Excellent point.

Re:phosphor burn? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751840)

You didn't need that eye anyway.

Re:phosphor burn? (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751696)

I'm guessing this thing will require a couple watt laser for equal brightness.

No. A couple watts is what you use to burn things. A couple of milliwatts would suffice for this application.

-jcr

Re:phosphor burn? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30751998)

Phosphor burn is massively overstated. I'm still using the same 19" Hitachi I got in 1997 as my regular computer monitor and there's zero evidence of phosphor burn. It's also still bright enough to use under bright fluorescent lighting (and more than bright enough to use in a dungeon environment).

Re:phosphor burn? (1)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752084)

That shouldn't be an issue because the weight of electrons is greater than the weight of photons.

You see, photons are light.

Mitsubishi LaserVue (4, Interesting)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751086)

How is this better than Mitsubishi's LaserVue [mitsubishi-tv.com] technology? It's basically a laser DLP to phosphor opposed to whatever material is used by Mitsubishi for a standard DLP screen. It even looks like the LaserVue uses less power than this.

RGS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30751198)

As far as televisions are concerned, LCD and LED technology is crap. Plasma is still better. Nobody has been able to dethrone the Pioneer Kuros for it's picture quality. Panasonic is coming close, but I don't know if that's using the Pioneer plasma panels.

Ouch (2, Interesting)

idiotnot (302133) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751212)

Lasers+moving mirror == great reliability! Have a feeling these are going to make DLP or LCD lamp replacement look downright economical. Still prefer Plasma, personally, but the LED/LCD my SO's dad bought isn't horrible. Even at 240Hz, I did still notice some streaking, though (watching a football game).

Re:Ouch (1)

iangoldby (552781) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751476)

Lasers+moving mirror == great reliability! Have a feeling these are going to make DLP or LCD lamp replacement look downright economical.

DLP projectors also work by moving mirrors. There's no real reason why a scanning mirror need necessarily be unreliable.

Re:Ouch (1)

idiotnot (302133) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751626)

Sure there is; the manufacturing process to make them sufficiently long-lifed (>~5 years), prices them outside the range of consumer gear. I used to be a broadcast engineer; $10,000 cartridge CD players from 1988 still work fine today. The $25 portable CD player you buy from Walmart likely won't last two years, much less twenty.

Re:Ouch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30751784)

Excellent, and you only have 380 years left before you'll cross over and start saving money having bought the 10k CD player. (For 10k you could buy 400 $25 players at 2 years a piece that's 800 years worth of CD player).

Assuming of course that your 10k player not only lasts 20 years, but lasts many hundreds of years.

Re:Ouch (1)

McWilde (643703) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752126)

Is there a specific type of display that will filter out naked people [wikipedia.org] running across the pitch?

Re:Ouch (1)

jabuzz (182671) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752134)

Really, I thought the lasers and moving mirror reliability had been fix years ago. Least I have never seen a laser printer fail due to a broken spinning mirror or laser.

dont look at TV (3, Funny)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751248)

with remaining eye

Sounds like an updated CRT (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751252)

One commenter asked the same question I am asking -- "How thick is this?" The notion of a beam or beams scanning over a phosphor surface that is treated with cells and filters? Sounds like a CRT in most respects. But to have scanning beams, there should be some distance travelled which implies some thickness issues.

Re:Sounds like an updated CRT (1)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751426)

One commenter asked the same question I am asking -- "How thick is this?" The notion of a beam or beams scanning over a phosphor surface that is treated with cells and filters? Sounds like a CRT in most respects. But to have scanning beams, there should be some distance travelled which implies some thickness issues.

It also implies bringing back all of the alignment issues of CRTs and rear-projection TVs. This really sounds like a step backwards, regardless of any power savings (which in an LCD or LED monitor is mostly from the backlight anyway).

Re:Sounds like an updated CRT (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751644)

> It also implies bringing back all of the alignment issues of CRTs and
> rear-projection TVs.

Indexed beam technology should take care of that (though it was never commercialized for CRTs). Alternatively, one could use three lasers operating at three different wavelengths and three phosphors each sensitive to one of the lasers. Still seems like a CRT with moving parts, though.

In any case, the Trinitron I'm using right now has never had any alignment problems.

So it's a CRT ... without the CRT? (1)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751254)

So they took the basic idea of a CRT and replaced the electron beam with a laser and a moving mirror?

Sounds interesting, but I guess this will bring back all of the problems of a CRT (sharpness isn't guaranteed, image may flicker depending on the refresh rate, etc), plus a few new problems (mechanical parts that might be subject to wear, etc).

Re:So it's a CRT ... without the CRT? (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751304)

Yeah, they want to go back to the phosphor and sweeping beam technology? There were more things than just the thickness that I liked about LCD versus CRT's, and radiation & flickering were some of them.

in other news... (1)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751952)

Wait till they add the feature of an ultra cost efficient mono-color option.

The screen is not... it's not (2, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751360)

Something you can just refresh all at once. It's not a big lump of transistors.

It's a series of cathode ray tubes!

test (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30751418)

test test

what is the refresh speed? - factor for TVs (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751516)

People are spoiled by 80Hz+ now. E-paper is one-half Hertz and too slow.

Hey! You know what? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751520)

I bet you could do that with electron beams too! And with no moving parts! I should patent that...

Laser + Phospher = burn in? (1)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751568)

Doesn't PLASMA tv use lasers and phospher and this causes burn-ins? What about this? I don't care how good the image is, if burn-in occurs I don't want it.

Re:Laser + Phospher = burn in? (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751880)

Yes, and even burn in "resistant" plasma screens aren't resistant to it at all.

So, does it rely on phosphor persistence? (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751578)

I like the idea of a laser taking the place of the traditional electron beam, and I can see how it would be far more efficient, but I have to wonder if this is going to bring back the flicker problem that we always had with CRTs. One of the things I really like about LCDs and LEDs is the fact that the whole raster is lit all the time.

-jcr

Forget LAPD, I'm waiting for FEDs (2, Interesting)

Max(10) (1716458) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751618)

FEDs (Field emission displays) [wikipedia.org] are superior to CRTs, LCDs and these new LPDs in every way. FEDs have the same thin 2-4 mm profile as LCDs, but unlike LCDs produce very bright and clear images even in direct sunlight (which is why they were used as HUDs in airplanes) while consuming up to 10 times less power. Sony had a 36" FED prototype that consumed only 14 W, which is 1/8 of what a typical LCD and 1/2 of what an LPD of that size would consume.

Phosphors 4tw (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751666)

I still have a CRT television - backlit displays are rubbish for my preferred viewing habits, which tend to involve lots of darkness viz ; sci-fi, fantasy, etc. Any genre where significant amounts of screen time is spent in the dark just aren't as good on a display which can't achieve 100% blackness (in a darkened viewing room).

The colour response of CRTs is better also.

For picture quality this is on a direct footing with OLED displays, which are going to be using the same optically-excited phosphor compounds (as mentioned in the article). Field-effect displays should be able to use the tried and tested CRT phosphors as they use electron excitation. All of these should be able to display "absolute" black, unlike an LCD.

The downside to OLED and FED is the complexity of manufacturing the screen which requires a tiny individual element for each pixel. LPD sounds like it has a simplicity advantage in manufacturing terms. If the laser works, it works, no dead pixels. It won't need a shadow mask or aperture grill, it won't need a vacuum so a reasonably sized display won't need 10s of kilos of high-lead glass, it'll never need degaussing, it won't need a multi-thousand volt transformer inside it.

It sounds like it should soundly beat out all of the existing displays in terms of manufacturing cost, have a picture quality better than LCDs, a colour response similar to CRT, refresh rates of at least 100Hz for those of us who hate display flicker, maybe higher for those of us who want 3D (or maybe make the resolution higher and put a polarizing filter on it), and consume 25% of the power of LCDs. The only downside is that it might be somewhat deeper than the flatter displays.

eye damage? (1)

Dark Fire (14267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751744)

How powerful are the lasers being used? If the phosphor wears thin over time, would you have laser radiation burning out your eyes. Perhaps the technology will bring some truth to that old parental adage about sitting in front of the tv too long.

Finally! (1)

raphael75 (1544521) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751796)

My command center sure could use a display upgrade!

It's been done before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30751850)

It won't work, from that patent image, they are simply rehashing the old laser TV system idea [osti.gov] . That polygon motor has to spin at an incredible speed and has to be extremely stable. Synchronization of the laser and the mechanical components is also difficult. Definitely not going to be a mobile display.

DIY LPD using blu-ray lasers (1)

marciot (598356) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751940)

I'm actually in the process of hacking together something similar with a 405nm violet laser pointer, a sheet of glow-in-the-dark material, and a moving mirror. The laser pointer leaves a bright trace on the phosphorescent sheet. My notion was to build a small robot that could write glowing messages as it moved across the glow in the dark sheet.

Anyhow, these guys are apparently working on a full-color version. I think what makes this possible now is the cheap availability of blu-ray laser diodes with sufficiently high wavelength to cause materials to phosphoresce. Red or green lasers do not work (I've tried). These guys were probably waiting for laser technology to catch up to them.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...