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!

Paper Capable Of Playing Videos Developed

simoniker posted more than 10 years ago | from the crumple-up-tonight's-daily-show dept.

Science 332

Makarand writes "Nature has posted an article describing paper capable of displaying video using rearrangeable electronic ink, being produced by Philips Research Labs (in the Netherlands). The paper-display draws power from a lightweight battery, and displays data stored in a portable chip. The display consists of pixels containing a drop of colored ink that can spread over a reflective white background under electrical control to create colors. With fast switching times and lower switching voltages, these paper-displays are capable of displaying video images."

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

Hmm (-1, Offtopic)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052714)

somehow, i read that as "paper clip encode video"..... i need to go to sleep. first post?

Re:Hmm (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7052727)

Thanks for sharing that, you die now

Re:Hmm (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7052740)

New, Microsoft Media Encoder! With Clippy!

"It seems like you're trying to encode video. Would you like help?"

3rd pr0st!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7052719)

You bitches. This is the 3rd post. I DON'T FAIL IT.

YOU FAIL IT. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7052942)

You got 2nd post, not 3rd! :P

Yeah but I doubt (-1)

Sir Haxalot (693401) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052723)

The frequency would be great, would hurt your eyes after a couple minutes I would guess...

Re:Yeah but I doubt (-1, Redundant)

brsmith4 (567390) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052748)

they are up to 80 Hz. Pretty damn good already, eh? A poster up above has a link to the BBC article saying this.

Re:Yeah but I doubt (0)

Sir Haxalot (693401) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052764)

they are up to 80 Hz. Pretty damn good already, eh? A poster up above has a link to the BBC article saying this.
I'll have 2!

"Great" frequency? (4, Interesting)

WegianWarrior (649800) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052767)

The frequency would be great, would hurt your eyes after a couple minutes I would guess...

I guess that depends on what you mean by a "great" frequency. In Europe, television has a frequency of 50Hz (it's 60Hz in the US) - even if I've heard that two and two frames are alike, in other words that the frequency is 25 or 30Hz. Movies in theaters are usually run at 24 frames per second, in other words a frequency of 24Hz.

There is no real need to have frequencies running much higher than that to watch a movie - since a frequency of 72Hz would just mean that the same picture would be drawn three times over, and thats a waste on a device like this.

In addition, there might not make much sence in talking about frequeny at all on a device like this; if they want to save on power, they only alter the state of the pixels that actually changes between each frame.

Re:"Great" frequency? (1)

watzinaneihm (627119) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052802)

And usually our eye hurts because of backlighting and the fixed focal length you have to hold for a long time. In this case they dont have a backlight and so may be better for your eyes/

Basics of television technology (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7052834)

I guess that depends on what you mean by a "great" frequency. In Europe, television has a frequency of 50Hz (it's 60Hz in the US) - even if I've heard that two and two frames are alike, in other words that the frequency is 25 or 30Hz. Movies in theaters are usually run at 24 frames per second, in other words a frequency of 24Hz.

The 50/60 Hz number is for fields per second. As you might know, (standard) television is interlaced; one field has the the odd lines of the picture and the other has the even lines.

If the source material was video, which stores its pictures in fields, you can see this in fast-moving objects (there's a ripping effect; occasionally you can see this effect in badly encoded DVDs also). Video source material is used mostly in documentaries, news, etc.

If the source material is film (most TV series are shot on film, as are all movies ;-) then you have 24 FRAMES (not fields) from which to construct your 50/60 fields per second. In this case, adjacent fields do come from the same picture, and effective frame rate is 24 Hz.

(If you have 60 Hz TV, the method is called 3:2 pulldown; one film frame provides 3 and 2 fields alternately. 50 Hz TV just speeds up the film a bit and uses two fields per one frame).

Not exactly (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7052927)

Effectively, films and TV go at 25/30 (europe/US)frames per second. However, as you've noticed, TVs have twice the frequency needed to show such frame rates. In fact, 100Hz TVs are becoming quite common in Europe, and I guess 120Hz TVs will also be available in the US. This is because, althought 25 fps is enough to make your brain see continous motion, it's actually so slow that you would notice a lot of flickering on the TV screen if it had a 25Hz refresh rate (because of the way the screen is redrawn). I have not seen any of these papers working, but I guess that the same thing might be applicable here.

Re:"Great" frequency? (3, Insightful)

ejito (700826) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052944)

Video and televsion are recorded on film, which has a delay on each frame. this delay captures a set amount of time, also known as motion blur. When people move on film, their body movements are actually slightly blurred (but not so much that it coudl be noticed easily), creating the illusion of smooth animation. If you play videogames on your monitor, you'd immediately see the difference between 24FPS and 60FPS. If you're a habitual gamer, you'd even be able to see the difference between 80 and 100 FPS (depending on the game). As someone else has pointed out, interlacing plays an important role in visual perception as well. I can actually see my monitor flickering right now, while I'm running at 60hz (i have an old monitor). It's even more apparent on cheap screens, where I can see the mouse cursor flicker. On nice TFTs that interlace the image updates and also hold their "color"(persist between updates), it looks really smooth. On horrible flatpanels, it looks really awful, even at 80hz, if they don't use good refresh techniques.

Re:"Great" frequency? (2, Insightful)

whm (67844) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052966)

In addition, there might not make much sence in talking about frequeny at all on a device like this; if they want to save on power, they only alter the state of the pixels that actually changes between each frame.

This neglects that it takes power to simply maintain the image. As the article states, it's an application of voltage that controls the size of the inkdot pixel. The energy usage is only zero when displaying a completely black image.

Re:"Great" frequency? (4, Informative)

lars_stefan_axelsson (236283) | more than 10 years ago | (#7053002)

Movies in theaters are usually run at 24 frames per second, in other words a frequency of 24Hz.

Actually, movies are run at twice that, i.e. in order to reduce the flickering each frame is projected twice. And 48Hz is just barely acceptable for straight on viewing. You'll see the flicker clearly out of the corner of your eye.

So, they actually need more than that, 72Hz is actually about right for something that you're sitting close to (such as a computer screen).

There's a lot of info [tvtechnology.com] on the net if you want to dig deeper.

It's a porno AND a tissue. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7052724)

How convenient...

Re:It's a porno AND a tissue. (2, Funny)

blake8087 (688462) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052730)

All slashdot readers will care about is whether it runs linux. Porn comes second.

Re:It's a porno AND a tissue. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7052995)

Tough call I think

Re:It's a porno AND a tissue. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7052752)

I have performed you boolean search ...
enjoy

porno AND a tissue [google.com]

Re:It's a porno AND a tissue. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7052791)

Why are there so many "Red Hot Chili Peppers" results in that search?

Cast Your Mind Back A Few Years (1)

Farley Mullet (604326) | more than 10 years ago | (#7053006)

Why are there so many "Red Hot Chili Peppers" results in that search?
The Chilli Peppers had a single called "Scar Tissue" a few years ago. So how is it connected with porno? Well, you're searching the internet. That's enough of a connection.

Re:It's a porno AND a tissue. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7052809)

And people get offended when they are moderated down. With the quality of certain top posts on Slashdot, you really start to wonder what the general mentality is around here. More and more, it seems like a large percentage is sex-starved, I-want-to-be-funny goofballs not worth wasting time lsitening to. Taco, we need better filters.

Get a sense of humour (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7052819)

that was one of the funniest things I've read all day

Filter:It's a porno AND a tissue? (3, Informative)

Porthwhanker (708730) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052913)

With the quality of certain top posts on Slashdot, you really start to wonder what the general mentality is around here... Taco, we need better filters.

There *are* better filters: Preferences, Comments, Scroll down to Reason Modifiers, -6 for "Funny", Scroll down to Save. No more funny jokes.

Personally, I like to laugh once in a while.

Re:It's a porno AND a tissue. (4, Insightful)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052964)

More and more, it seems like a large percentage is sex-starved, I-want-to-be-funny goofballs

This part is +1 insightful, rest looks like a typical flamebait. Note most nerds ARE sex-starved, funny goofballs - and this is their site with their news and their style comments! If you don't like that, move elsewhere, there are many science news sites on the web. The fact that slashdot is not as classy as YOU would like it, doesn't mean it needs to be changed. It means that YOU need to look for a more classy place.

And hell, somebody mod me offtopic or flamebait and I'll get really pissed off!

Re:It's a porno AND a tissue. (1, Funny)

kars (100858) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052896)

Watch out for those nasty paper cuts though, or you might just end up giving yourself a circumcision :)

Marketing madness! (4, Interesting)

Empiric (675968) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052725)

Okay, it might be way too late at night for me to be posting, but...

I wonder if the advent of multimedia paper, as it were, will create a sea-change in the nature of all types of advertising.

As it stands now, most every box/can/available-surface of products is in some way branded advertising for the product, like, your coke can says, naturally, "Coca-Cola". This advertising must translate into some approximately-calculable value for the Coca-Cola company, in terms of more coke sales.

But... is there an inflection point at which an ad for something else (say, Porsche cars) would be more valuable than the advertisement for coke? If so, might companies sell space on all manner of products wrapped in this multimedia-paper like banner ads?

It might be interesting to open my refrigerator and see a few-dozen multimedia presentations on various consumer goods, changing every morning, but... well, maybe a final trip in that Porsche to some Amish community might be more sanity-preserving.

Re:Marketing madness! (4, Interesting)

jestill (656510) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052750)

I am afraid that as costs come down you may be right. Combine this with low cost sound systems and you have a recipe for complete madness. This sort of thing has been explored in the Minority Report Movie, and to some extend in Neal Stephenson's 'The Diamond Age'.

Re:Marketing madness! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7052793)

E-Ink is partially owned by Inter Public Group, one of the larges advertising conglomerate in the world.

Marketing material needed (1)

MacroRex (548024) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052885)

We need to know how this thing works. Could we have a video about it?

Re:Marketing madness! (1)

PowerPill (687850) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052950)

Spielberg showed us an exemple of what you are talking about in the movie Minority Report. The scene with the cereal box comes to mind mostly as well as the newspaper on the subway. With wireless devices becoming smaller and their range much greater I can see adverts like the one on your coke can or even simply a bill board changing at the advertisers whim. It'd save on labour costs and time no doubt. Imagine heading down to 7-11 to pick up your paper and never having to ever get another again. Now that would be cool. Of course a laptop could do the same but... Not as cool. =)

Re:Marketing madness! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7053005)

Take it a step further... /BEGIN PATENT
And you could have a newspaper or a can of coke changing it's ads wirelessly depending on your location.

So if you went into the Sony store you would get sony ads or if you went into Fry's Electronics you would see their specials for that Fridays ads!

Then I wouldn't have to get the weekend paper anymore just for the ads!

But think of the nightmares this would cause with advertisers AMP'ing up their ads signals so that they would get better distance into a competitors store! /END PATENT

Impressive. Now, when does it ship? (4, Interesting)

silentbozo (542534) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052732)

Color e-paper, great for display devices, able to replace LCDs, etc. Now when do these things go into mass production? I'd love to have flexible solar cells at pennies per yard, but I can't get those yet either.

Re:Impressive. Now, when does it ship? (1)

Joel Carr (693662) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052956)

Well the article says that: High-resolution monochrome electronic paper is already on the verge of commercialization, produced by Massachusetts-based company

So if the monochrome technology is reasonably priced, I'd imagine there would be a strong consumer demand. Since colour e-paper would be the obvious next step, and there are people willing to shell out money for the stuff, one would expect development on the colour technology to increase.

So my guess is soon , read sometime in the next 10 years :)

---

Re:Impressive. Now, when does it ship? (2, Insightful)

Hyler (99628) | more than 10 years ago | (#7053013)

Yes, I would like to have at least monochrome now. It would be great for, for example, (interactive) billboards. I get the feeling that monochrome "electronic paper" could be rolled out tomorrow, but the developers are holding back waiting for the 25 fps, 32-bit color, GeForce compatible version. I don't want to watch video or 3D graphics on "paper".

Video (-1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7052737)

That's great, finally we can watch porn on paper!

Oh, never mind.

BBC News story... (5, Informative)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052739)

Here's the BBC's slant on the news: Electronic paper prepares for video [bbc.co.uk] .

They're already up to 80 Hz refresh (12-13 ms respnose times). That's pretty damn impressive for a technology that's still in the basic R&D stage, and it augurs well for the future.

Re:BBC News story... (3, Informative)

dmoynihan (468668) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052969)

Bistable nematic [nemoptic.com] screens can do 25 hz [nemoptic.com] --difference is they're shipping it out right now. [google.com]

high tech? (1, Funny)

t0rnt0pieces (594277) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052745)

(With apologies to David Spade)
I liked it better the first time...
When it was called Etch-A-Sketch [etch-a-sketch.com] .

Re:high tech? (4, Funny)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052853)

If you can operate your Etch-a-Sketch quickly enough to display 80Hz video on it, then you really need to cut down on the caffeine...

Re:high tech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7052905)

If you can operate your Etch-a-Sketch quickly enough to display 80Hz video on it, then you really need to cut down on the caffeine...

I think you misspelled "crystal meth." HTH. HAND.

The Daily Prophet (5, Funny)

Zog The Undeniable (632031) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052746)

Boring...they had all that in Harry Potter two years ago, and oil paintings that talk ;-)

Re:The Daily Prophet (1)

dockthepod (540781) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052784)

come on, they had this in myst way before that

Good toilet paper ! (1)

zymano (581466) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052751)

Maybe better than charmin and wont tear in your hand while doing business and watching Howard Stern.

Question: (-1, Offtopic)

soliaus (626912) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052754)

Anyone have some more tech pron, or even some technical details?

But how do you get color? (4, Informative)

panurge (573432) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052761)

The picture in the article has to be misleading. Although a camera has adjacent color receptor sites, print color doesn't work like that at all. If the cells are adjacent, they can only produce an approximate gray. In the CMYK standard printing process, the ink markings superimpose, so grays are achieved with different sizes of black dots, and red is obtained by superimposing yellow (-blue) and magenta (-green). This means that instead of being adjacent as in the picture, the cells would have to be stacked. There would also need to be some way of ensuring that when the cells were partially colored, the upper colored areas were not directly over the ones below (or they would be obscured and only the top color would show.)

There may be some magical solution to this, but it looks to me as if color is very, very much more difficult than mono.

Re:But how do you get color? (1)

no_mayl (659427) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052800)

How about using RGB instead? and the background would be K instead of white. Or maybe double layered thingy, with RBG on top, K, then the white at the bootom. The K cells would be under the RG and B.

Re:But how do you get color? (1)

panurge (573432) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052839)

So how do you get 100% red? The maximum intensity of any primary color would be 33%.

Re:But how do you get color? (1, Interesting)

ejito (700826) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052877)

RGB is meant for emission of colors, like from a glowing monitor. CMYK is meant for reflection fo colors, like from a piece of paper.

The poster is trying to allude to the fact that a combination of colors creates whites and grays, not color. I do however disagree that the cots must be stacked to create visible color.

If the dots were tiny enough, it would be possible to use CMYK by dropping uneeded colors to white, and using all of the colors together to create a very dark black, while still keep fairly vibrant colors.

For example, a book with only the cyan and yellow colors highlighted would create a nice dark teal color. Now say if every other yellow was highlighted, it would make an even darker color.

One interesting thing to note: in the picture of their array, it looks like K (blacK) is a very dark blue. I'm sure it looks black to the naked eye, though

Re:But how do you get color? (0)

ejito (700826) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052887)

For example, a book with only the cyan and yellow colors highlighted would create a nice dark teal color. Now say if every other yellow was highlighted, it would make an even darker color.
Sorry mistake...
I meant if you had a 2:1 cyan to yellow ratio it'd create a brighter color because of the white space. To make it darker you'd have to start adding black dots.

Re:But how do you get color? (1)

no_mayl (659427) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052935)

http://www.aecom.yu.edu/aif/instructions/pictrogra phy/printer1.htm
This is a true RBG printer (not with internal rgb -> cymk convertion like some of the Epson 1270)

So RGB/K/W could work just fine.

Re:But how do you get color? (1)

no_mayl (659427) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052958)

my bad. Ignore the previous post, that printer still does cym internally. Damn. I'm sure RGB could work, but would probably look ugly...

Re:But how do you get color? (3, Insightful)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052808)

In the CMYK standard printing process, the ink markings superimpose

This is partially true as I understand it. When the ink is layed down the screens for the four colors (cyan, magenta, yellow and black) are not aligned perfectly. They are offset so many degrees apart and a printer could tell you the optimum settings to avoid moire patterns. Perhaps this could have something to do with it.

Re:But how do you get color? (1)

achurch (201270) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052810)

I may have no clue what I'm talking about, but my impression was that they plan to get the dots really small, to the point where the eye can't distinguish them as individual points--then your eye just takes the average and gets whatever color was intended. They said something similar in the article with respect to getting clean shades of grey.

If you think about it, even regular ink works the same way--whatever size it is, if you have a dot of ink on the paper then it's going to obscure whatever's below it. (Or maybe things work differently at the molecular level? IANAPhysicist.)

Re:But how do you get color? (5, Informative)

AlecC (512609) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052992)

It is not a question of working differently at a molecular level. In the thin film that actually ends up on the page, the inks are translucent - think Jello, not paint. Each ink absorbs the light at some frequencise and passes others, which then bounce of the white paper behind - unsess abosrbewd by another ink at the same point. It is not perfect, and in bulk the inks look opaque. But the inks are actually printed over each other.

You are right that, if the dots are really small, the eye will average them out. This is, actually, how screen printing works: there are actually rows of dots in shaded areas. However, they are of the order of 30 times smaller than pixels on even the best screen, so it takes quite a powerfule glass to see them.

What the article doesn't say, but the picture does, is that Cyan+Magenta+Yellow, which should theoretically produce black, actually produces a durty purplish brown. So you need some real black to get a good rendition. Each pixel will have to have four cells.

Grandparent is correct. Because the cells are spatially separate, 100% red will actually only have 25% of the the background red, the rest remaining white. So I would expect a colour display, while having good readability, to be rather flat an uninteresting. The B/W display should be very good. Because it is reflective not emissive technology, it should have excellent readabilty and low poer consumption (but not the zero power consumption of the e-Ink in /. a coupel of weeks ago).

With lots of small dots (1)

LauraW (662560) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052818)

Although a camera has adjacent color receptor sites, print color doesn't work like that at all. If the cells are adjacent, they can only produce an approximate gray

If you can vary the intensity of size of the cells, you can get lots of colors other than gray. I have a fairly high-end inkjet CMYK printer that produces great prints. (It's an Epson 2200, fwiw.) To the naked eye, colored areas look, um, colored. But if you look at a print with a loupe (even my relatively cheap 4x one) you can see zillions of different-colored dots. By varying the relative sizes and positions of the dots, they can get lots of different colors.

CRTs and LCD monitors work similarly. There are lots of small, single-color dots of varying intensities. Unless you get really close, the eye blends them all together into solid colors.

I hope that was coherent. The drugs I took for my backache seem to be taking effect, so I may wake up in the morning and discover I posted something horrendous. (Which would be better than the time that I didn't remember making a post at all and wondered who had hacked my account.)

Re:With lots of small dots (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7052861)

try acupuncture. there is solid scientifically evidence for it. see www.curezone.com

Re:But how do you get color? (1)

xoboots (683791) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052841)

They didn't seem to comment on resolution, but the suggestion seems to be that it is at least as good as traditional print. It seems fair to assume that optical mixing will come with their method just as it does in traditional print. Optical mixing may also explain the claims in regard to intensity and brightness.

Re:But how do you get color? (5, Informative)

MalachiConstant (553800) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052858)

In the CMYK standard printing process, the ink markings superimpose, so grays are achieved with different sizes of black dots, and red is obtained by superimposing yellow (-blue) and magenta (-green). This means that instead of being adjacent as in the picture, the cells would have to be stacked.

I worked in a pre-press shop for a couple of years, so I've worked with printing on a very low level. The color dots don't need to be directly stacked on one another to achieve a certain color. In fact each color is printed at a seperate angle so the dots are rarely directly on top of one another

Take a magnifying glass to your sunday comics and you can see that the black dots are at one angle (usually straight up and down) and each other color is rotated slightly. Even at relatively large dot sizes (72 dpi) the dots seem to merge together to form whatever color they're looking for.

Since the dots are arranged in groups of four in this paper you could achieve the same result, except it may look a bit more like a computer image (made up of distinct pixels in a grid) as opposed to a magazine picture (pixels for each color are rotated). It also sounds like they can make the dots whatever size they want, which is how it is done in printing:

The larger the applied voltage, the more the ink retracts. The ink is therefore capable of a continuous grey scale, not just of a two-tone contrast.

And even if the dots were stacked directly on top of each other it would still work. The ink is spread so thin that it's transparent, that's why yellow on top of magenta shows as red. So if they could stack it somehow it would show correctly (assuming the ink they use is like regular ink in that way).

Re:But how do you get color? (2, Informative)

pVoid (607584) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052890)

Hmmm, the painter Georges Seurat was a pointilist. I'm not going to post a link to his picture because we would melt down any server I link, but a quick google for his name will find you pictures.

My point is: if you look closely at those paintings, the dots aren't superimposed. They are side by side. And they are quite big: the size of small brushes... So it *does* work.

Re:But how do you get color? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052941)

Look really, really close at your computer screen. The cells don't overlap. They abut. And you see all those intermediate colors just fine.

I forsee problems with this technology. (1)

grimsweep (578372) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052768)

Sounds great. Let's just hope junior doesn't mix up 'touch screen' with 'crayola-responsive'.

I'd hate to come home and find my Toshiba notebook was turned into Little Billy's coloring book.

Mirror (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7052775)

here [tappi.org]

Nothing! (-1, Offtopic)

cca93014 (466820) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052776)

PAPER? BAH! I want it made out of thin air! THIN AIR!

Re:Nothing! (1)

Roger_Explosion (709412) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052817)

http://www.io2technology.com/ :)

Re:Nothing! (0)

Roger_Explosion (709412) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052824)

*sigh* I gotta learn to use 'preview' :)

Re:Made out of Thin Air (1)

naztafari (696863) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052828)

Re:Made out of Thin Air (1)

arbi (704462) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052971)

Light reflecting off of clean air seems technically impossible to me. The fogscreen machine from Finland reflects light off water vapors but this one appears to require nothing?

Excellent (4, Insightful)

SpiffyMarc (590301) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052780)

We're that much closer to those creepy animated singing cereal boxes from Minority Report...

A young Lady's illustrated primer (1)

no_mayl (659427) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052782)

Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age or, A young Lady's illustrated primer." focuses on a book that uses re-arangeable ink (a book with an AI).
Nice reading for SF fans.

I welcome our new e-paper overloads... (2, Funny)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052790)

That's right - I said overloads. As soon as this is cheap enough, it's going to go on every bit of packaging, junk mail, and flat surface. Each one will vie for your attention. Imagine walking into a Target or Krogers or Walmart and seeing aisle after aisle of seizure-inducing, moving displays that blur into a undulating mass of 'buy ME!' and over-stimulation.

When is it enough? How much can our wee little monkey brains take? I'm guessing that the 'eXtREEEM' of the future will be advertising that may kill old people or small children.

Of course, the perfect app for this is e-paper voting! Now elections can be rigged *and* everyone can have a copy of their vote!

(Note: Votes subject to change)

Re:I welcome our new e-paper overloads... (1)

vonFinkelstien (687265) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052832)

At the Willy:s (cheapest supermarket chain in Sweden but with crap selection) here in Orebro, they have installed TVs in every checkout aisle. TVs which play nothing but ads (ads for Willy:s products and for anything else [e.g., Hotel in town] that is paid for).

So much for peace and quiet while waiting (and we wait much longer here in Sweden at the checkout than in the U.S.--something about the midnight sun or cheap-ass companies who don't hire enough part-timers)

tssfulk

PS. You must finish your citation:
Later that day . . .

Well, this reporter was...possibly a little hasty earlier and would like to...reaffirm his allegiance to this country and its human president.

May not be perfect, but it's still the best government we have. For now.

[notices "HAIL ELECTRONIC PAPER" sign taped up, tears it down]

Oh, yes, by the way, the spacecraft still in extreme danger, may not make it back, attempting risky reentry, bla bla bla bla bla bla.

We'll see you after the movie.

Re:I welcome our new e-paper overloads... (2, Interesting)

stuffman64 (208233) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052871)

I was at a gas station in the Southside (a part of Pittsburgh) the other day to get some crappy coffee, and there was a monitor at the cash register playing ads for various car-related products and other crap. Since there was a line, and I have a short attention span, I just kept watching the ads when I was waiting. Apparently, the cashiers hate the thing because it repeats every few minutes or so (I would imagine this would be the only thing worse than listening to a pop or hip-hop radio station for an hour). It will only be a matter of time before these are everywhere.

Re:I welcome our new e-paper overloads... (1)

mayns (524760) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052928)

And you really think that someone from 100 years ago wouldn't have a fit if they walked into a Wal-Mart and saw all of the brightly coloured packaging? They were used to everything being packaged in a lovely shade of brown paper. And they were the first generation who had the pleasure of nationally available prepackaged merchandise. This will be a big deal for a few years and then we'll be use to it and be incapable of imagining a world without it.


future=different
get used to it

Re:I welcome our new e-paper overloads... (5, Interesting)

Jace of Fuse! (72042) | more than 10 years ago | (#7053010)

Your point almost makes sense, until you consider the fact that all people are in fact suffering from more stress and enduring more psychological problems than previous generations.

You can blame better diagnosis (or misdiagnosis) if you want, but really I'm not sure the typical human is really meant to be as smart as society now days expects it to be. A natural human living off of the land really needs to know nothing more than how to make a spear, run from big beasts, and keep out of the rain.

Technology (be it tending crops or inventing holodecks for wild endless regret-free sexual encounters), builds on technology. Each generation has tools and knowledge that previous generations didn't have. At what point will it reach a level where few people can cope? Even now days most poeple haven't got a clue what's going on inside a computer. Most people haven't got any idea how a telephone, automobile, or television works.

How many times have you heard someone say "I don't need that many features on my TV/VCR/Microwave/etc"?

Some people evolve with the times, others just learn to cope, but more and more I think we're going to see people who simply can't hack it all. As more and more people become unable to deal with it, I can honestly see us finding a name for whatever disorder they supposedly have, fiding some medication for it, and then sending them on along their way.

We'll think they're slow, or stupid, or have no common sense, but in reality, these people could probably make a spear and hide in a cave as well (maybe even better) than the other overly cereberal upright hairless apes.

Not e-books, perhaps, but... (4, Interesting)

achurch (201270) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052792)

I'll still take real dead trees over electronic paper for my leisure reading, I think, but how about the opposite application: writing? "Print" a document to the paper, mark it up in a meeting, and have the changes all saved without having to go back and mark it up again on your PC. Alternatively, take the paper to your favorite country getaway, write up a story, and (assuming your handwriting is decently legible) have it automatically OCR'd into text for later editing, without needing to lug a laptop around and all the associated annoyances.

I dunno, sounds good to me . . .

Re:Not e-books, perhaps, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7052893)

There is already something like this. Anoto [anoto.com] has developed a pen with built in scanner/OCR functionality. It even has bluetooth so you can transfer it to your computer or fax it immediately. The only drawback is that it requires you to write on a special paper (with a fine grid printed upon it).

Hey! (1)

vonFinkelstien (687265) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052795)

Hey! What ever happened to the "Paperless Society"?

My desk is buried in mounds of paper, and now they want be to find the one that is used as the display?

Sigh.

does anyone else here feel old? (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052799)

remember those old, cabinet-sized gothic beautiful wooden radios with huge glowing tubes visible from the back? some of you might have only seen them in museums

did you think to yourself "good gosh, what archaic times" when you saw them? we probably all did

and then i see news like this, and know how people like us, who grew up with crt screens and space heater-looking computer cases with noisy fans in the back, will be seen as archaic some day ;-P

Re:does anyone else here feel old? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7052840)

Im a 24 year old fan of 20th century nostalgia. I guess you could call me a modern anthropologist. I see these old stereos and electronics that my dad finds from renovating old houses that people have left. One old lady gave him this old Curtis Matthews stereo that is gigantic and built like a tank! It has this beautiful oak finish and has a cabinet for records. In its day it was _the_ high end stereo to get. It still works good and it sounds great. I dont know what it is but old albums just seem have great bass that I can't get on digital stereos.

You can still get them for real cheap at thrift stores like goodwill, especially in urban areas.

Magazines will never be the same. (4, Funny)

CherniyVolk (513591) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052804)


Tired of the bored centerfolds that just sit there?

Nothing more than paper Flash! (1, Funny)

bobobobo (539853) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052807)

No, no more Flash! Make it stop!

It's a big step, but... (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052813)

...what I read in a science-fiction book (can't remember the title now) seemed to be the right future for me.

A computer the size of matchbox, or something similar. Some pretty, neat shape. One button. Upon pressing, a holographic image of the keyboard and display are created. Follow as with normal computer :) Well, not quite, holographic creation overrides all that standard hardware limitations. Just load the right program and you have any keyboard layout you desire, manipulation by reading your hands position etc.

2d displays like that have quite a few years of future yet, but far future belongs to 3d. And real 3d, not as in "seen from sweet spot, flat makes illusion of 3d", but so you could watch your pr0n from all sides by walking around it.

Diamond Age, anyone? (1)

LauraW (662560) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052822)

Did someone say that hard, predictive SF [powells.com] was dead?

Animation on paper? Try LSD-25 (3, Funny)

minnkota (576497) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052842)

Who needs this type of technology?

Shit, we've had all we need to watch the drawings on our paper move around since 1938!


Turn on, tune in, drop out!

Wow! A CMYK Monitor... (1)

naztafari (696863) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052859)

No need to worry about out of Gamut warnings when working on RGB...

Hmm... the core technology behind this is something called 'electrowetting'... isn't that what the barnyard masturbators from the worst jobs in science [clickability.com] article from PopSci used to extract sperm from pigs?

I for one welcome our new electrowetting masters!

THOSE CRAZY FINNS AGAIN!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7052869)

Oh my God, THOSE CRAZY FINNS did it again!

When can I paint my Yugo with this? (2, Funny)

InsaneCreator (209742) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052918)

How about "video" car paint? I'm sure noone would notice I don't own 5 different cars or that I'm not really sitting in a Porsche. :)

I'd never finish my thesis ... (1, Funny)

Potor (658520) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052938)

with paper like that.

Rant about calling it "Paper" (1)

fruey (563914) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052946)

It's clearly not Paper, or electronic Paper.

These are displays, ultra thin, ultra flat, paperlike. However I suspect that the wood (more accurately cellulose?) content is minimal, and that it does not absorb water, cannot be written on with washable ink or pencils, and cannot be torn easily.

Surely someone can come up with something better than "electronic paper" anyway. People these buzzwords are designed for (those who don't understand, somehow, and have to have things dumbed down) end up just getting alienated anyway. It's MUCH clearer to say "the super flat paperlike thing that your TV will become" rather than saying electronic paper, which the average technophobe will just laugh at?

guess what: (1)

teemu.s (677447) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052951)

-> the first release of magazins on this e-paper will come for free
- youll be able to download all the books, zines, etc. for free
- but these will _still_ consist of 75% ads and 15 % content -
so whats the difference?

A one page book? (2, Interesting)

MacFury (659201) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052952)

Since the "paper" can be refreshed with any content...would there be any practical reason for an eBook to have multiple pages? The only reasons I can think of are; to save power by refreshing multiple pages only one time, thus longer battery life, and to transition between the habit of turning pages of a dead tree book.

Often time I like the tactile feedback of holding a book in my hands. I like that it doesn't make a noise unless I ruffled the pages, no humming fan or whining battery...but, I don't like turning pages and diverting my eyes from the left to right sides, especially when reading in bed.

All jokes aside, I like to read with one hand curling the left side underneath the back of the book which makes reading the right side of the book great, and the left side a pain.

Re:A one page book? (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052978)

deadtree books are a bit better for grokking. Plus, battery, RAM, all that things weight a bit and make that not quite as a single sheet of paper.

But one-page hard cover book, that wouldn't be so bad :)

Got to get rid of it (0, Funny)

ExCEPTION (102399) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052967)

Time to get rid of my old habit of wiping my ass with the newspaper I just finish reading.

And a beowulf cluster of these will make some funky toilet paper rolls.

Hah! (1)

Solokron (198043) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052975)

Now you can take your freshly downloaded porn wherever you go!

FINALLY! (1, Funny)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052985)

You will be able to print webpages with the <blink> tag properly!

Demonstration movies - ZIP file torrent! (1)

eaglebtc (303754) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052988)

Click this link [adelphia.net] to download a torrent that contains a 5MB zip file of the demonstration movies from Nature.com (free registration required to obtain, so I saved you all the trouble).

Re:Demonstration movies - ZIP file torrent! (1)

eaglebtc (303754) | more than 10 years ago | (#7052998)

Sorry, if you're getting 10061 "refused" errors, then you need to register at the tracker site: http://headhunterstracker.no-ip.com:6969 [no-ip.com] in order to connect to the torrent.

Just create a free account, login, and don't close the browser window until the torrent is open.

Overclocking... (4, Funny)

DaneelGiskard (222145) | more than 10 years ago | (#7053008)

So if I overclock one of these, "burned out" will finally become a whole new meaning...? :)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?