×

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!

Nanoresonators Create Ultra-High-Res Displays

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the don't-tell-crytek dept.

Displays 231

TuurlijkNiet writes with this excerpt from Linux for Devices: "Eat your heart out, 'Retina display.' A new technology unveiled yesterday will allow creating pixels eight times smaller than the ones on Apple's iPhone 4, eliminate the need for polarizer layers, and allow screens to make much more efficient use of available light, say University of Michigan researchers. ... The pixels in the nanoresonator displays are about ten times smaller than those on a typical computer screen, and about eight times smaller than the pixels on the iPhone 4, which are about 78 microns, according to Guo. Such pixel densities could make the technology useful in projection displays, as well as wearable, bendable or extremely compact displays, according to the researchers."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

231 comments

cool (2, Interesting)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 3 years ago | (#33393944)

Now that they can make pixels so small that they can only be singled out from distances closer than my eyes can focus, they can finally put some effort into making.. i got nothing, i don't see the point of this.

Re:cool (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33393990)

Now that they can make pixels so small that they can only be singled out from distances closer than my eyes can focus

You answered your own question. Lay them down on transparent material, put that on a pair of glasses, and Bob's your uncle.

Re:cool (2, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394392)

It'd need some way to determine how your eyes are focused though - whether you are intending to look at your hud or something distant. Hold up an object up to your eye about where your glasses would rest. Close the other eye that won't see the object. Look at the object, then look at the wall behind it. Edges should get fuzzy and details will get blurred. When you get into thin lines like a GUI Frame or Text Font, this kind of focus is crucial.

The annoying thing is, once you've been taught to read, any time the center of your gaze lands on upon letters your muscle memory forces you to read it, ultimately taking focus off of what you might have actually been looking at. Its possible to force yourself to ignore it, but you have to generally be trying not to read in order to not to read, which seems weird, because it should be easier to NOT do something than do something, right? Imagine words being printed on your glasses, and how quickly you'll be shifting back and forth between 1 inch from your eye and that person 5 feet away, how much eye strain that will cause and how this system will have to either adjust to be readable at both focal points, or at a very minimum NOT get in your way when you are looking at something else.

This fantasy of an good GUI overlay right over the eyes is really a difficult one to tackle. I'm not saying it can't be done, but even once we get the display down, there are still hurdles.

Re:cool (5, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394538)

It'd need some way to determine how your eyes are focused though - whether you are intending to look at your hud or something distant. Hold up an object up to your eye about where your glasses would rest. Close the other eye that won't see the object. Look at the object, then look at the wall behind it.

Now look back at the object. Sadly, it isn't your eye. But if it had a fine enough resolution it could be compatible with your eye. Look down, back up. Where are you? You're on Slashdot looking for the display your display could look like. What's in your hand? Back at me. I have it, it's the iPhone 5 with a display so fine you can't tell the difference. Look again. The iPhone display is now a projector. Anything is possible when your device is made from nanoresonators and not a retina display. I'm modded up.

Re:cool (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394900)

Cool funny rewrite of the ad while still being on-topic. Bravo.

Here's the original ad [youtube.com], in case someone has been living in a cave with no internet access for the last few months and has never seen it.

Re:cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33394964)

Well stated, Old Spice guy.

Re:cool (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#33395182)

I can't even focus about where glasses would rest. I understand this to be true for most people.

So once you start using a beam to draw on the retina, you can probably manage to measure the current focal distance and simply have the projection go along for the ride. Or perhaps have it pop into view when you look at a certain spot relative to your body and drop out of existence when you look away from that spot.

Re:cool (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33394408)

Now that they can make pixels so small that they can only be singled out from distances closer than my eyes can focus

You answered your own question. Lay them down on transparent material, put that on a pair of glasses, and Bob's your uncle.

Ah, brilliant! Because when you wear the glasses, it'll project an image of your uncle over your friend Bob any time you're looking at him, AND it'll be at a high enough resolution that you can look really close at him and still not make out the pixels?

Man, this is going to be GREAT for people who can't stand their friend Bob but who have really cool uncles!

Re:cool (3, Insightful)

leromarinvit (1462031) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394022)

Now that they can make pixels so small that they can only be singled out from distances closer than my eyes can focus, they can finally put some effort into making.. i got nothing, i don't see the point of this.

How about sharp and non-jagged fonts? It removes the need for anti-aliasing, since your vision acts as the low-pass filter now.

Re:cool (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394094)

Yeah, that whole antialiasing thing never really caught on did it?

Re:cool (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394632)

I think the whole point is that it did catch on, like a lot of other sucky engineering workarounds. And now we might have a chance to kill it at last.

Re:cool (1)

MORB (793798) | more than 3 years ago | (#33395052)

The grand parent does have a point. Since I bought a nexus one (which have a pixel density almost as high as the iphone 4), I'm yearning for the day where computer monitors reach the same pixel density. You have no idea how good it makes text look until you see it. My 21" 16:9 monitor feels ugly and pixelated now in comparison.

Re:cool (1)

Jargon Scott (258797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394040)

I'd like a glasses mounted display that has a respectable resolution for one. Plus maybe it could actually be made in a smaller heads up unit, so a person doesn't look ridiculous like the current nerd-tastic ones do.

Re:cool (2, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394076)

Now that they can make pixels so small that they can only be singled out from distances closer than my eyes can focus, they can finally put some effort into making.. i got nothing, i don't see the point of this.

Well, for a display on its own, it's not terribly useful. After all, increase the pixel density beyond the iPhone 4 and you'll be adding useless pixels that take memory (framebuffer), power (all those pixels require controllers behind them, plus your 2D and 3D accellerators have to push that many more pixels) and size (enlarged bitmaps and the like take more space). They say an iPad with the PPI of the iPhone 4 would become something like 3000x5000 pixels-ish, which we're talking is latest graphics card style power to render all those pixels.

HOwever, the use is mentioned in the summary - those pico projectors. A small, light, bright, 1080p+ capable projector is probably doable, rather than the WVGA or less resolutions you get now typically.

Magnify where? (2, Informative)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394596)

Might be interesting in combination with other technology, though... your idea of a projector incorporates magnification. What if the magnification was in your eye? Imagine a biomod that gives you up to 8x optical magnification; switch it in, and you'd be looking at the details on the display, if you wanted to -- they'd be there all the time.

Another thing is stereo output (mistakenly characterized as "3d" by today's marketing droids.) With pixels this tiny, it might be a lot easier to have a set for each eye that are set into what amounts to a wrinkled substrate; one set would direct light at the left eye, while the other did so at the right. Resolution wouldn't suffer because it's still below your ability to resolve the pixels.

You could put a full-HD display in just a corner of your sunglasses, and drop an optical layer over it so that when you were looking into it, you could see detail, depending on the angle your eye created against the optical layer; that would also help manage focus distance issues.

HUDs might be implemented better because the pixels are so small that they just wouldn't be visible when off; a (very) thin line of this material would be like an ultra-thin wire in the glass... but when emitting light at night, would become strikingly visible... depending on the light output, that might even work in the day. Depends on where they're getting the light from, I would think

Instruments like microscopes, telescopes, binoculars, cameras... anything you put your eye to, really... the could benefit from a very tiny display and some small optics to give you status / info on what you were observing.

And hey, how fun would it be for an electronics tech to have an oscilloscope display built into his safety goggles?

I could see a day when the entire multicore computer is in your glasses. You talk to it; it talks to you through the earpiece; display is both full-screen in one corner, and HUD all over the glass; antennae are in the arms of the glasses.

Anyway, just some ideas. There must be tons of applications for really tiny displays, as opposed to big displays with pixels you can't resolve.

Re:Magnify where? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394942)

What I'd like is projectors so small and yet so powerful that I could project what I'm seeing in front of me so that other people around me could also see what I'm seeing.

Re:cool (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394814)

increase the pixel density beyond the iPhone 4 and you'll be adding useless pixels...

Unless perhaps you're interlacing. I guess it depends on what kind of framerates you can get.

Re:cool (1)

PsyciatricHelp (951182) | more than 3 years ago | (#33395054)

I am imagining an IMAX screen made of this. holy crap. But does this mean my Phone is gonna be running 10800p resolution while my 60" is still sitting at 1080. The processing power for all the additional pixels is gonna be ridiculous.

Re:cool (2, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394082)

Contact lenses with integrated display. I'm overdue with augmenting myself already...

Re:cool (1)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394610)

Beyond Bluetooth - taking lookin' crazy in public to a whole other level!

- Give this lady some room! She's having a seizure!
- Huh, what? Who me? No, no, 'scool. I'm just watching the US Open...Yes! You go Serena!

.

Re:cool (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394750)

Contact lenses with integrated display. I'm overdue with augmenting myself already...

Inter ocular lenses with wifi capabilities would be even more efficient.

Re:cool (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394982)

Inter ocular lenses with wifi capabilities would be even more efficient.

Until you have to change the battery in your eye..

How about wearable displays? (1)

maillemaker (924053) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394166)

Right now the virtual displays that you wear as eyeglasses simulate a screen in front of the wearer, but they are limited in resolution to something like 1024x768. It would be awesome to have lightweight, high-resolution, wearable displays that would allow interaction with the visible environment just by turning your head. Lots of gaming/simulation possibilities. Steve

Re:How about wearable displays? (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394248)

Right now the virtual displays that you wear as eyeglasses simulate a screen in front of the wearer, but they are limited in resolution to something like 1024x768.

It would be awesome to have lightweight, high-resolution, wearable displays that would allow interaction with the visible environment just by turning your head. Lots of gaming/simulation possibilities.

Steve

Possibilities like not needing to waste desk space with a monitor? Technically one person can't (with normal vision) look at more than one display at a time; yet having 2,3, even 4 on a desk is becoming increasingly popular. A pair of display glasses with accurate motion sensors could give you a display of unlimited size. Plus! Now my desk will have room for that Zen garden...

Re:How about wearable displays? (1)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394450)

ok, you win, thats the most awesome idea so far. A totally virtual display of infinite possible dimension would be fantastic. Only problem is that you need more than one headset available if you need to show people something. (that or a normal monitor that reflects where you are looking)

Re:How about wearable displays? (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394706)

That's what the pico-pico projector in the glasses is for. When you want to share, you turn on the projector and it will show what you are seeing in the direction you are looking. And it can even be "magic" enough to turn off the glasses level display when the projector is on....that's how you could continue to use the glasses when there was no backlight.

Re:cool (3, Informative)

Defenestrar (1773808) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394236)

Every layer of polarization cuts the available light in half. Creating a display with pixels smaller than the unaided eye can view without these is actually huge because the current limit in preventing a "realistic" display (i.e. you can't tell the difference between the display and looking out a window) is actually in the contrast resolution (difference between light and dark) which still has a very long way to go before it hits human eye capacity. Freeing up more light allows for brighter whites and perhaps even the possibility of layering displays to get darker blacks (depending on the transparency of "black.")

Re:cool (1)

draconx (1643235) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394898)

the current limit in preventing a "realistic" display (i.e. you can't tell the difference between the display and looking out a window) is actually in the contrast resolution (difference between light and dark) which still has a very long way to go before it hits human eye capacity.

Actually, parallax (the lack thereof) is a bigger issue here. Unless your display can simultaneously show different images to different people based on their position, it will never be mistaken for a window.

Re:cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33394628)

The implications of this are huge.

#1) Finally, a display technology whose image is indistinguishable from reality. No fuzz, no blur, no aliasing.
#2) Finally, a backlit display technology that does not lose 95% of the lighting energy (the biggest item in the energy budget) to waste. Even if it loses 90%, you could reduce lighting to less than half the energy budget of handheld electronic devices, and get another revolutionary leap in capabilities based on the vastly larger energy budgets available to the devices.

Re:cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33394798)

"What's the scouter say about his ...?"

Re:cool (3, Interesting)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#33395028)

I'm no expert on this, but what if they could be used to make LCDs that don't look like ass at non-native resolutions? If one pixel at 1920x1080 is actually a bunch of these tiny pixels acting as one (at least as far as the OS is concerned), then it would be far easier to "enlarge" that collection of pixels to act as a single pixel at 1280x720 by simply enlarging it by the proper number of subpixels. Seems feasible to me, but maybe someone with more experience in that area can chime in.

Re:cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33395074)

The question is how well the mini graphics cards will handle such resolution. That's a lot of pixels to push... - j

Re:cool (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#33395176)

Now that they can make pixels so small that they can only be singled out from distances closer than my eyes can focus, they can finally put some effort into making...

Super high resolution screens that look as good as print media even under extremely close inspection?
Games that don't need anti-aliassing because you can't see the jaggies anyway?
User interfaces that can scale gracefully without doing an ugly cludge in changing the display resolution and making everything blurry?

Bendable displays (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33393956)

The implications of a bendable display are huge, but I think something people don't address enough is durability. I don't mean "this display can be rolled up in a pringles can and still function!", I mean from a puncture and general jostling around perspective. People expect these displays to be paper thin...but what kind of material are these displays being sandwiched in between to ensure that they stay safe?

Re:Bendable displays (1)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394100)

same stuff they layer onto your car's windshield to make it safety glass. watch the myth-busters episode about tornados throwing 2/4's. some of the laminates (which are flexible plastics) can withstand the force of a 2x4 traveling insane speeds and not rip/break. a simple layer of this on both sides would make the display nigh-indestructible for most users.

Re:Bendable displays (1)

JWRose (139221) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394728)

I think you're overstating what the saftey glass does. I does not prevent the glass from breaking. All it does is prevent the broken glass from being scattering all over the place. So Objects, most certainly, can pass through the safety glass, it just won't cause the broken glass from falling all over you.

Re:Bendable displays (1)

CeruleanDragon (101334) | more than 3 years ago | (#33395110)

But the big question is: can they withstand a WiiMote being hurled into them? That's what I really want to know.

Re:Bendable displays (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394198)

Such expectations are probably because of how those bendable displays were always showed off - as something rollable & paper thin. Yeah, not striking me as practical.

But I suspect their properties will matter most to manufacturers - it will become easy to cover non-flat surfaces with displays and/or to cover most surface area of some device. Oh, with a solid protective cover on top.

Re:Bendable displays (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394930)

are any of these fordable, like fold up and stick in my back pocket and sit on sort of foldable?

Re:Bendable displays has a problem (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 3 years ago | (#33395078)

The largest issue with bendable displays and a difraction grating is color shifts with viewing angle. Anyone besides me work with diffraction gratings and thin film Dichroic filters?

The color is very vibrant and accurate, providing the viewing angle is controlled. This works with a projector because the angle between the light source and lens is fixed. This does not work for a direct view computer screen. The problems compound with a bendable direct view display.

MMmmmm porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33393960)

I for one would love to view porn with those screens O:-)

"nano" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33393970)

Can we please stop calling something that's a bit smaller "nano"? It's so stupid. We thought we'd have real nanotechnology by now, we don't. Get over it. Jesus if integrated circuits were invented today with 0.1mm transistors on them we'd call those "nanotransistors".

Re:"nano" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33394794)

Can we please stop calling something that's a bit smaller "nano"? It's so stupid. We thought we'd have real nanotechnology by now, we don't. Get over it. Jesus if integrated circuits were invented today with 0.1mm transistors on them we'd call those "nanotransistors".

Maybe if you had any clue about the technology involved (plasmonics), you'd have a clue as to why it's referred to as 'nano'. No, it's not the grey goo idea of nano that we all long for, but they do incorporate nano-scale components to make the resonators...which is rightfully referred to as... wait for it... 'nano'.

IPhone Nano ... (2, Interesting)

Zorlon (181163) | more than 3 years ago | (#33393978)

Looking forward to teeny tiny iPhones

Re:IPhone Nano ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33394066)

Looking forward to teeny tiny eyePhones

There... fixed that for ya.

Re:IPhone Nano ... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394518)

In reality for iPhone displays the "Retina Display" is really as good as you are ever going to need, just like we never gotten anything more then 32bit color depth (With is still only 24bit color depth with extra command colors) . This technology isn't really good for improving the mobile devices with screens, but for projectors, which can project say a 1080p display and fit in your cellphone. Keeping the "Retina Display" is actually a really good idea as the new phones can get much faster without have to use its new found speed to more graphic processing.

Can I get my watch in 1080p now? (3, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#33393994)

I am guessing this is "small enough" yes? Also, I want a netbook with a resolution higher than 1366x768 as well.

Re:Can I get my watch in 1080p now? (1)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394340)

I am guessing this is "small enough" yes?

At least read the summary. If you want a high resolution display from a compact projector small pixel sizes are a must. Imagine as an example trying to squeeze a projector into a mobile phone.

Manufacturability? Cost? (2, Insightful)

CityZen (464761) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394080)

I have a feeling we won't be seeing this in consumer products any time soon.

Re:Manufacturability? Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33395254)

I would assume the same, but half of the devices we use on a daily basis are cost-prohibitive and darn-near impossible to manufacture, save for the fact [wikipedia.org] that they can sell millions of them.

Could be good... (4, Insightful)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394092)

...if it means that we'll start getting computer monitors with higher resolutions again instead of repurposed HDTV screens.

Re:Could be good... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394822)

The fact that we weren't getting repurposed HDTV screens back when 1920x1080 was new hotness was a scam. It was a collusion between LCD manufacturers to keep prices high for both computer monitors (which were available at 1050-pixel vertical resolution for no good reason) and TV screens.

Now you get higher resolution by either adding a second monitor or getting a humungous monitor. Higher resolution on the size of monitor you have now may not do you any good, unless you want 3D without the goggles [arstechnica.com] in which case a multiplier of current maximum pixel densities is an awesome enabler.

i never know what that means... (1, Interesting)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394238)

How does one read the phrase "8 times smaller "? Initially I want to take it as 1/8th the size, but "8 times" would indicate multiplication is involed...

Re:i never know what that means... (1)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394310)

Multiply by 1/8, maybe? I agree though -- it does seem a bass ackwards way of comparing sizes.

Re:i never know what that means... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33394320)

I wish I had mod points today.

"n times smaller"
"n times slower"
"n times fewer"

Ugh!

Re:i never know what that means... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394404)

Not necessarily, Would a 16x CDROM be 8 times faster than a 2x CDROM or an 8x CDROM drive? Which is one of the reasons why that was always kind of a stupid way of naming things. Because technically it is 8x faster, because 1x is a defined unit.

Re:i never know what that means... (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394552)

Because technically it is 8x faster

Technically it is 8x as fast, or 7x faster. Otherwise you'd have to say the same speed is 1x faster. You're comparing how fast they are, not how faster they are.

Re:i never know what that means... (1)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394574)

That's what makes this OK.

A 1x CD-ROM is defined as a certain transfer rate. 2x is twice that base rate. 8x is 8 times that base rate.

"Pixel" is not a defined unit of measure. Pixels can be large, as in your old 40" standard def CRT television, or small, as in the iPhone "retina display". I can think of several ways "8 times smaller" could be defined. The one that seems to make the most sense, to me, is the one that has nothing to do with multiplication.

Re:i never know what that means... (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394516)

Just like the phrase "throw the baby out with the bathwater" would indicate that the situation involves babies, baths, and infanticide. Yes, the meaning of X times smaller isn't totally clear, that's because it's an idiom. It's been in use since before your great-great-grandparents were born and it's just one of those things that you have to define in terms of the whole phrase rather than the individual words that make it up.

Re:i never know what that means... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394526)

Wow, I never thought of that phrase as ambiguous in the least. "8 times smaller/slower" always means divide by 8 and "8 times larger/faster" always means multiply by 8. I wouldn't use it in a scientific paper, but it should be okay in informal usage.

Re:i never know what that means... (1)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394606)

Ok. If this is some sort of standard that I missed out on, I'll accept that. I do think it's stupid though. We already have a phrase for that definition: "an 8th the size".

Re:i never know what that means... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33394700)

Wow same here, why is it ambiguous? I don't see the ambiguity here, 8 times slower, 8 times smaller, 8 times crazier... It all makes sense, why the hell did somebody brought this up?

Re:i never know what that means... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33394690)

And when dealing in 2-D, I always wonder if that means they're 1/8 the linear size, i.e. you can fit an 8x8 matrix of 64 pixels into one iphone4 pixel, or does it means 1/8 the area = 8 per iphone4 pixel...

Re:i never know what that means... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33394788)

would you prefer them to say .125 times smaller?

Re:i never know what that means... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394810)

No, that’d be 8 times larger.

Re:i never know what that means... (1)

albedoa (1529275) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394880)

lol oops yeah, I just realized he said "smaller". That still makes no sense!

Re:i never know what that means... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394948)

The point is it’s a reciprocal relation.

If A is 8 times larger than B, it follows that B is 8 times smaller than A. That’s the only interpretation that makes any sense at all. So of course 8 times smaller means 1/8th the size.

Re:i never know what that means... (1)

albedoa (1529275) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394834)

If the author indeed meant that, then yes, we would obviously prefer something that makes sense over something that does not.

Re:i never know what that means... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394842)

Yes, that's what it means.

I never know why people don't get what it means.

It may be mathematically ungrammatical, but it's perfectly clear what it means.

Except for the part where they don't say whether it's by lineal or areal dimensions.

Wearable displays? (5, Funny)

Guppy (12314) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394240)

Such pixel densities could make the technology useful in projection displays, as well as wearable, bendable or extremely compact displays, according to the researchers.

I'd be interested in seeing this technology in head-mounted wearable displays, and would like to propose that we term such devices "scouters". I believe they'll become practical once the achievable dpi is over nine-thousand.

Re:Wearable displays? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33394546)

This means that Dick Tracey can have better pr0n on his watch...

Re:Wearable displays? (1)

TimMD909 (260285) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394680)

I'm pretty sure no matter how nice the resolution, using your scouter to gauge the power level of a Super Saiyajin Level 2 is still not going to happen.

"Eight times smaller"? (0, Redundant)

Necreia (954727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394318)

Perhaps I'm understanding this wrong, but wouldn't "One Eight the Size" make a lot more sense? Having something 'times smaller' would suggest a difference in size being multiplied, and not fixed size.

Re:"Eight times smaller"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33394836)

Wtf, even in French we use the expression "8 fois plus petit", 8 times smaller... I wonder why so many people are complaining about this, I never noticed anything wrong...

Re:"Eight times smaller"? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#33395032)

"One eighth the size" would make even more sense! The only source of confusion I see is that it is not clear whether the area is 1/8 as much (i.e. 8 times more pixels per square inch) or the width and height are 1/8 as much (i.e. 8 times more pixels per linear inch).

This could lead to 3D display advances. (1)

Domini (103836) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394356)

Yes, so it's higher than the eye can see, but that does not mean it's useless...

For one thing it may lead to advances in 3D displays without using 3D glasses. For this application it may be useful to be double the resolution, or even higher.

Wake me when there's a product (1)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394362)

Over the years I have seen so many interesting technologies reported that will 'revolutionize or replace LCD'. Smaller pixels, better light, better this, better that... yet most of them never seem to materialize as a viable product. There was a promising technology similar to led that recently got taken off of life support. I still haven't seen OLED displays on anything bigger than a cell phone. e-paper is expensive and hard to come by.

Everyone is getting all hyped about yet another piece of vaporware. I just can't bring myself to be excited by these 'advances' anymore.

Re:Wake me when there's a product (1)

insufflate10mg (1711356) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394626)

Do you believe that 40 years from now the advances you refer to will not have manifested in products? We are living in a time of incredible technological advancement, and you should be thankful that you are witnessing thousands of "tiny steps." By your logic, because the product is not available RITE NOWZ, it never will be. Patience is a virtue, virtue is a grace. Grace is a little girl who didn't wash her face.

Re:Wake me when there's a product (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394980)

Patience is a virtue, virtue is a grace. Grace is a little girl who didn't wash her face.

My co-workers are wondering why i can't stop laughing.

Might be sooner than you think. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33394654)

What is great about this is that is more like a repurposing of existing technology rather than Inventing new materials.

Eat your heart out.. (1)

gbrandt (113294) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394412)

Why would the 'Retina Display' eat its heart out over a research project that is probably years away from development.

Is there really a need for this on slashdot? Tell us about the new tech...leave the rest out.

Filter, not Display (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394560)

As nearly as I can tell from the (garbled as usual) article this is about a combination filter and polarizer, not a new type of display. The pixels would still be liquid crystal and I see nothing here that would make them smaller: just more efficient.

Re:Filter, not Display (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33394978)

LCDs work by polarizing light emitted by a lamp behind them (or light reflected from the front that is reflected by mirrored surface behind them).

You make pixels by making small regions that you can control electrically. But with LCD there's a limit to how small you can make them because of the crystals involved. And to do colors you make a color mask and have each color covered by one region, and open or close them in combination to make one RGB pixel.

These researchers have found a new polarization method that also does color filtering, and does it in a much smaller space.

The picture of the M with the 3-micron scale bar on it is sick. It tells me that the "8 times smaller" thing is way understating the resolution these guys have achieved. A pixel on a good monitor is 240 microns across, and it would take a square a couple dozen pixels across to render that picture with the fidelity of those angles and spaces. Their effective pixels are a fraction of a micron across. That's a factor of about 1000, not 8, unless they were comparing to some other technology that isn't yet in stores.

This stuff is totally FTW.

The hard part now will be finding enough CPU or GPU power to drive it all in real-time.

Re:Filter, not Display (1)

Panaflex (13191) | more than 3 years ago | (#33395062)

It's a 2D array of MEMS which open and close a slit in a variable size, creating a light grate which has the effect of changing the light color.

come on, nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33395132)

Would some nerd please explain (reasonably) the reason why there are polarizing filters in LCD displays right now? I never really understood it.

Re:come on, nerds (2, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#33395260)

A LCD uses two polarizing filters. One of them “flips” its polarization 90 degrees when you apply a current.

Depending on the current, the polarizing filters can either be lined up (0 degrees) or perpendicularly aligned (90 degrees), or anywhere in-between.

When the polarizing filters are lined up, the backlight shines through (or the ambient light from the room is reflected off of the back of the display. When the polarizing filters are perpendicular, the pixel is black.

The color itself is created by a normal filter; individual red, green, and blue sub-pixels are used to create any RGB value.

8x smaller then what we can perceive??? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33395170)

Nothing to see here, move along!

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...