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!

A Video Projector That Fits In Your Pocket

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the princess-in-robot-tech dept.

Displays 187

Sven-Erik writes "Video projectors able to project high-quality images will be embedded in your cellphones and laptops within two years. This is the promise of a new technology developed at Cambridge University. These pocket projectors will have no lenses and no light bulbs. Instead, these future battery-powered tiny projectors will rely on holographic technology and special algorithms. In 'Holograms enable pocket projectors,' Technology Research News explains that a 2D hologram will be created on a microdisplay and projected by using a laser beam. This has been possible because the researchers have written special algorithms which generates the holograms a million times faster than standard ones." Update: 07/03 21:21 GMT by T : Note that this text belongs to Roland Piquepaille and comes from his weblog; submitters, please strive to make your sources clear.

cancel ×

187 comments

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

Is that a video projector in your pocket (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9600939)

Or are you just happy to see me?

Better punchline? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9600982)

In that a video projector in your pocket, or just Ed Wood? Get it? I said wood.

Oblig Star Wars Ref (5, Funny)

anaphora (680342) | more than 10 years ago | (#9600940)

Yes, but when will we be able to put them in robots?

"Help me Obi Wan Kenobi, You're my only hope."

Re:Oblig Star Wars Ref (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9600967)

As far as I know, true holographic projection "Obi Wan Kenobi" style is not possible with any presently known techniques.

Anyone care to prove me wrong?

Re:Oblig Star Wars Ref (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9601165)

You mean about this? Or just in general?

Re:Oblig Star Wars Ref (5, Insightful)

Tlosk (761023) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601107)

You know the funny thing is I remember thinking to myself the first time I saw that why the holographic video was grainy, it seemed preposterous to me that they could have that sort of technology on R2D2 and yet have it be all grainy in appearance.

And now it seems incredibly prescient lol, given the millionfold increase in processing speed using the noise variance method described in the article, the trade off between graininess and speed actually becomes quite rational.

Re:Oblig Star Wars Ref (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9601160)

Hey, I guess even a complete moron like George Lucas can appear intelligent on occasion.

Of course, even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'll chalk this shit up to coincidence.

In Soviet Russia... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9600950)

In Soviet Russia The Projectors Video YOU!

Hmm (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9600957)

On a side note, inexpensive home projection theaters kick ass. Cost is about $400 for everything besides the projector. I don't know why anyone with a week of time would buy a plasma TV.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9600968)

"will be embedded in your cellphones and laptops within two years."

at what cost? sounds expensive

Re:Hmm (4, Informative)

The Only Druid (587299) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601154)

There are several reasons:

1: Plasmas look perfect in bright light, allowing you to use them without blanketing the room in darkness.
2: Plasmas are rated to last around a decade, give or take. Bulbs in projectors need to be replaced (after a comprarable amount of use) in about 1-2 years.
3: Plasmas are almost without exception higher resolution and clarity than projectors.
4: Plasmas are almost without exception better at displaying pure black and pure white, and thus at displaying all colors in between, than projectors.
5: Plasms dont require an unobstructed path between the projector at the screen, i.e. they're easier to position in a potentially crowded room.

There are more, but I'll leave it at that.

Re:Hmm (2, Interesting)

HeelToe (615905) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601353)

Yes, there are clearly tradeoffs. I took the projector approach and I couldn't be happier. Not quite movie-theater angular size, but closer than anything short of a movie theater. For 1/3 the price of a plasma 3/4 the size of the screen.

It will be interesting to see how the new prototype Sony technology (the black screen thing) works out. It would be amazing to have a high quality projected image without needing great control of the ambient light.

There are also people doing reverse projection setups using front projectors. These also reduce the need for ambient light control.

Re:Hmm (1)

ftzdomino (555670) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601368)

Plasma tvs don't require $400-$1000 bulbs for every thousand hours of viewing.

Watch for Apple (3, Insightful)

fastdecade (179638) | more than 10 years ago | (#9600959)

Apple will make this a standard component first, in the same way as they picked up on other trends and mainstreamed them, e.g. window-based UI, 17" screen, PDA.

Re:Watch for Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9600973)

hmm, food :)

Re:Watch for Apple (2, Interesting)

euxneks (516538) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601010)

Apple will make this a standard component first, in the same way as they picked up on other trends and mainstreamed them, e.g. window-based UI, 17" screen, PDA.

Kinda strange though, that when I think of those three items I don't think of Apple....

Re:Watch for Apple (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601153)

1. Window-based UI: popularized by Apple, invented by Xerox
2. 17" screen: Probably referring to the Powerbook being the first 17" notebook.
3. PDA: Newton.

Re:Watch for Apple (2, Informative)

Ironclad2 (697456) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601022)

Didn't the PDA become a market-standard device some after Apple *dropped* the Newton?

Re:Watch for Apple (2, Insightful)

fastdecade (179638) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601082)

Yeah, they certainly made a mes of the Newton. I'm not saying they succeeded in everything they kicked off, I'm just saying they put their butts on the line and go all-out with upcoming technologies.

In the case of Newton, they made it big news. There were PDAs before, mostly industrial, but Apple were making a big fanfare about being the first mainstream PDA.

As it happened, all the publicity backfired big time.

Re:Watch for Apple (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9601203)

In Soviet England, Apple drops on Newton!

Re:Watch for Apple (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9601023)

Apple is not "mainstream" .. the only thing they "mainstreamed" was the iPod.

Re:Watch for Apple (2, Insightful)

fastdecade (179638) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601100)

Apple's not exactly mainstream, but it pushes technologies into the manistream. If I had a dollar for every "candy coloured" gadget that came out in the late nineties ...

won't the small size also affect image quality? (4, Informative)

adzoox (615327) | more than 10 years ago | (#9600962)

My question is:

If the size of the lens makes a difference in CCDs in camcorders (moreso than digital cameras) - won't the small size also affect image quality from these devices?

Also, will these devices be ANOTHER cost INCREASE? - because projectors (affordable units) are JUST now appearing on the market.

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality? (4, Funny)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 10 years ago | (#9600980)

I guess you messed the HIGH QUALITY part of it.

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9600985)

No, there's high quality camcorders that suck at image quality - the nicest cam on the market performs the worst in dark lit rooms

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality? (2, Funny)

arieswind (789699) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601013)

dark lit rooms? isnt that contradictory? O_o

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality? (1)

Tlosk (761023) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601388)

Only to pedantic cornholes, are you one?

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality? (4, Insightful)

sploo22 (748838) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601003)

To the best of my knowledge, the loss of image quality with standard optical equipment occurs due to imperfections in the lens. With this method, there seems to be no actual refraction taking place - it all operates on wave interference. And I quote:

"No lenses are required -- the projected image is formed entirely by diffraction," said Cable.

Believe it or not, the cost is not likely to be that much higher, because there's no need for precision optics, just a tiny screen and a laser.

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality? (2, Interesting)

RickHunter (103108) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601025)

Actually, the cost is likely to be quite a lot lower than anything involving optics. Making lenses is hard work. Making lasers is easy. And from what they say in the article, I gather that the hardware for the image production bit is pretty easy to make too. What's complicated are the algorithms they use in the background.

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601174)

Making a raster image using lasers isn't eactly easy. In the past, it required a mirror that swivels on two axis (axes?), quickly and accurately.

I suspect there is a reason that it has taken this long. I've heard about the possibility a few years ago, but not this method.

Now the only question is whether the laser colors conform to existing video standards or if they will look a little off, because how good it will look will depend on a reasonable level of color accuracy on the primaries.

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality? (1)

Too Much Noise (755847) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601232)

No raster is involved in holography - you get the whole image at once. Of course, with generating the holo pattern that produces the interference you need to generate the 'pixels', but that won't involve the laser. As to colors, it's not that hard - tune the laser and the hologram to the right frequency.

Thet said the big problem was generating the holo pattern quick enough - and this is where they say they outsmarted the previous methods. The rest of the problems are probably technical. Let's hope they will have low-cost solutions, too.

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality? (1)

Saeger (456549) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601242)

Making a raster image using lasers isn't eactly easy. In the past, it required a mirror that swivels on two axis (axes?), quickly and accurately.

That's what Microvision does with their retinal scanners for augmented vision. Uses little MEMS mirrors.

--

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality? (2, Insightful)

Freudiandave (793760) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601068)

The fact that it's easier to use won't make it cheaper. There's a novelty to it that will allow them to price it higher if they want. Just look at DVDs, which should be cheaper to produce VHS, for an example.

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality? (1)

MeatNoodle (776059) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601028)

Read the article. The thing doesn't use a lens. It works by direct refraction of a laser through a hologram.

However, I'll be interested in the quality anyway... The article goes on to say that coming up with the hologram in real-time is accomplished by minimizing noise variance, and not noise. My guess though is that initial units will be "good enough". After that, incremental improvement of the technology should bring the quality up to HDTV levels.

P.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality? (1)

adzoox (615327) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601187)

Actually in the aricle it's very confusing:

"Key to the device's diminutive size is the lack of lenses and high-power light bulbs. Conventional digital video projectors form images by generating a small picture on a transparent microdisplay inside the projector, then shining a high-power light through the microdisplay to a large magnifying lens.

In the researchers' design, a two-dimensional hologram is shown on the microdisplay rather than an image, and the projected image is formed by shining a laser beam through the microdisplay, which scatters the light into a particular pattern. "No lenses are required -- the projected image is formed entirely by diffraction"


To me that seems to be the same thing. The diffraction has to be achieved by glass or a prism of some type! Right?

Also, there ARE STILL microdiplays being used. Right now, these displays are STILL plagued with resolution problems and currently on glass - maybe soon on OLED - and wouldn't a laser cause such displays to fade or burn in?

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601226)

I don't know why a hologram is necessary for this, but if you shine light through a diffraction grating, and that light is coherent, you ought to be able to get an excellent idea of where it will end up. It sounds like they're going to be using the known qualities of gratings with several possible states to project their images. More power to them, even if I don't really understand it either. Projectors are the future! Well, and the present.

Here are a couple more images (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9601360)

http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache:jdiZwftMXhIJ:w ww2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~eb296/research.shtml+Real-Time+ Binary+Hologram+Generation+for&hl=en

They all look pretty naff.

Personally I think scanning laser projection makes a lot more sense. They need some mechanical parts for deflection, but just like this device they need no optics ... and they can still produce high quality images, rather than needing coarse approximations like this approach.

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9601113)

No way! C'mon, they're using Fricken Lasers!

New killer teleconference app? (4, Interesting)

VinceWuzHere (733075) | more than 10 years ago | (#9600966)

What an addition this would be to remote meetings, instructing, etc. Just set your cellphone on the table and have a live demo in front of your eyes. Of course someone will likely use it for pr0n before any other "real" uses...

Pr0n? (1)

MisanthropicProgram (763655) | more than 10 years ago | (#9600987)

Ooo yes! Project it on the bathroom stall door and ....

Re:Pr0n? (1)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601030)

Ooo yes! Project it on the bathroom stall door and ....

Damn. I was hoping bathroom teleconferencing would predate portable holograms...although President Scroob probably thinks differently about that.

Re:New killer teleconference app? (1)

Sven-Erik (177541) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601035)

Well, getting the pr0n industry to start using a new technology is a sure thing to get it to take of! ;-) Just think of Super-8, vcr's, Internet, DVD's...

sign of the times (5, Funny)

justforaday (560408) | more than 10 years ago | (#9600984)

The Pocket Projector - the sign of a true dork.

Take it anywhere (5, Funny)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 10 years ago | (#9600988)

Great. This only increases the potential of being able to have PowerPoint presentations shoved down your throat, now anytime, anywhere.

PHBs beware, do not approve a purchase of one of these projectors for use by Debbie from Sales.

OT - names (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9601119)

Don't you just love it how we've gone back to the medeival naming scheme. Just as people used to be 'John the Miller' or 'Jesus of Nazareth' or whatever, you now have 'Debbie from Sales.'

My 2 cents.

Re:Take it anywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9601243)

What if Debbie did Dallas instead of Sales?

Novel idea. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9600989)

"This has been possible because the researchers have written special algorithms which generates the holograms a million times faster than standard ones."

These novel algorithms will be patented.

Re:Novel idea. (-1, Offtopic)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601007)

Prior Art (and Ob. South Park movie reference)

General: "Fucking Windows 98! Get Bill Gates in here!"

(MPs bring Bill Gates in)

General: "You said this was supposed to be faster!"

Bill Gates: "It is faster. It's exactly one million times-"

*BLAM*

They should be patented (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9601034)

...These novel algorithms will be patented....

Of course, and they should be. 'Novel' applications like this one are completely non-obvious. That's what patents are for. All I'm saying is that I don't think anything is wrong with this company getting patents for it's work.

Well.. (3, Interesting)

arieswind (789699) | more than 10 years ago | (#9600994)

I dont see how putting projectors in phones will make them any more useful than they are, they will only make it more expensive.

The Laptop projectors on the other hand, if they are built in, would eliminate the need for bulky projectors when a worker needs to give a presentation to his boss or co workers.. they could even make mini tv's use this technology, and project onto any free space of wall.

Re:Well.. (1)

TerminalInsanity (720167) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601164)

with some of the cellphones out these days... add a projector and you have a full-screen portable gaming platform

Re:Well.. (3, Insightful)

aero6dof (415422) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601180)

Go one step further and you might have a laptop with flip up lid that consists of little more that a reflective surface to shine the projector onto, flip the lid out of the way and have a presentation projector.

Re:Well.. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601252)

Just one or two generations of cellphones from now, you'll be using your camera and projector-equipped cellphone and you'll remember this comment and slap yourself repeatedly.

Re:Well.. (1)

arieswind (789699) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601298)

my cell phone does what it was meant to do, make phone calls, it has none of those addons, like games, cameras, text messaging, etc

Re:Well.. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601385)

Sooner or later they're all going to have those things. When image processing is so cheap that you can put a camera in a mouse to photograph the desktop and compute movement from a sequence of snapshots, it's kind of a foregone conclusion that everything that can have a camera in it soon will, and basically everything can have a camera in it.

Once upon a time we were all waiting for all cameras to have dot matrix screens which greatly improves interfaces. Now the things are in color and have games and web browsers. Sooner or later we're going to be shooting home movies and watching streamed video from our cellular phones.

Re:Well.. (1)

Saeger (456549) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601417)

Sooner or later we're going to be shooting home movies and watching streamed video from our cellular phones.

Without the right (read: big) camera lenses, they'll all be shitty movies too.

My new RedRider BB gun is going to have a compass in one side of the stock, a digital clockradio on the other, a camera on the site, and 802.11x and GPS. yeehaw.

--

queue the same jokes (3, Funny)

Saeger (456549) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601001)

  1. "Help me Obi Wan Kenobi!"
  2. "And you thought the punkass kids in the movie theatre with laser pointers were bad!"
  3. "Goatse.cx! Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!"

--

Re:queue the same jokes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9601077)

oh man. laser pointers ruined Spiderman2 for me. there were two of those assholes in the audience and evertime a woman was on screen they would shine it on her nipples or ass. If I knew where those fuckers were sitting.......... and I had a gun........ I would continue to sit quietly and do nothing.............. but i would be sure to give them a mean dirty look!!!!!!

Re:queue the same jokes (1)

quantum bit (225091) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601212)

So they'll use fancy nightvision goggles to nab some kid with a camcorder who isn't bothering anyone, yet do nothing to stop morons with laser pointers from ruining the show.

I think it's pretty clear what the movie theater owners think about their customers.

Re:queue the same jokes (1)

The Only Druid (587299) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601202)

As much as you're being ironic, you've actually hit on a real point here.

There are already a few cases involving people displaying porn on the headrest displays in their car (I dont have a link handy, but I could swear I saw one or more mentioned here at /.).

How long after these are developed do you think it will be before someone is arrested for seruptitiously displaying pornography in public? What about if you flash it quickly so only oner person sees it, and stop before they realize who caused it? I'm dreading the moment where I'm walking in the street and suddenly Goatse.cx pops up on the ground in front of me =P...

Re:queue the same jokes (1)

Saeger (456549) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601365)

IMO, nothing much can be done in the very near-term about the increasing level of eye and ear pollution out there, especially the paid-for commercial pollution - people will just get used to it.

A little farther down the road, though, we could be living in a Vingean world [google.com] where there's raw reality, and then there's the filtered augmented consensus reality. Your visual preprocessor would be able to recognize and remove the goatse.cx pattern before sending it down your optic nerve...

--

holograms in phones? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9601006)

you know the first application of this will be "Help my Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope" ringtones...

Sounds expensive. (1)

jZnat (793348) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601009)

Aren't normal projectors already as expensive as decent LCD monitors? This sounds too rich for my blood, or my children's blood, or my grandchildren's blood, ...

Re:Sounds expensive. (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601114)

Projectors have high powered bulbs, precision optics, and a bunch of other very expensive components. This method works by scanning an individual laser and reflecting it to a surface. Thus the price shouldn't be too much higher than that of a stock laser pointer.

Cell phones in theaters (1)

vspazv (578657) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601026)

And i thought cell phones in the movie theater were bad enough already...

Thank Buddha for technology... (1)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601027)

That the projected image is 2D is disappointing, but the fact that it doesn't require lenses or high power bulbs is an incredible feet.

Imagine trying to use a PDA with built in projector using todays bulb technology, not only would the PDA be the size of a large book but it would cook your hand too. Don't set it down too hard or you'll break the filament in the bulb.

The difference in power consumption between the laser and bulb is probably pretty similar. While the bulb only needs the power to glow and display output on the LCD, the laser projector requires not only the power required to light the laser, but the power to run the imaging LCD and the power to run the image processor (2GHz Athlon)

Re:Thank Buddha for technology... (1)

ColonelPanic (138077) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601048)

... is an incredible feet

What, it's got extra toes or something?

Re:Thank Buddha for technology... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9601141)

but the fact that it doesn't require lenses or high power bulbs is an incredible feet.

that would be "an incredible foot" or just incredible feet"

unless you really meant "feat" in which case Buddha's feet have nothing to do with it.

Students (3, Interesting)

mboverload (657893) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601038)

This will be great for students and teachers. In my school teachers are always fussing over the projectors and when they get to use them. Because of this, many have given up on using them. With these new pocket proijectors teachers can take them home and use them where ever and when ever.

I welcome our new pocket-sized projector overloards.

What's the light source? (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601057)

What makes this so great? They still have to have a light source and enough power to drive it.

The actual imaging component of a projector isn't that big. Look at the TI DLP chip. [dlp.com] Their projectors are already down to 2.2 pounds.

Color is a problem. Currently, you need either a color wheel for field-sequential color or three imaging chips, which looks better. This new "holographic" display has the same problem. Note that their demo image is greyscale.

What's really needed are powerful LED arrays as the light source. If you could change the light source color at a few KHz, which LEDs can easily do, a one-chip DLP projector without a color wheel would work. With an LED light source, you could do some other obvious power-saving tricks, too. You need no more light output than the brightest pixel in that color in that frame. With sectional lighting, maybe less.

LEDs with enough light output for this are not far off. LEDs have taken over automotive taillights, and white LED automotive headlamps are expected in 2006. Toyota showed a car with LED headlamps in 2003.

That direction is more likely to result in smaller projectors than this "holographic" thing.

Re:What's the light source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9601130)

What makes this so great? ...

Low power consumption and size ?

Re:What's the light source? (2, Informative)

sploo22 (748838) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601155)

This is so revolutionary because it has no optics. No lens, no mirrors, nothing. Plus because it uses a laser instead of a bulb, it will use less power, last longer and won't need a big fan to cool it.

Re:What's the light source? (3, Informative)

Viadd (173388) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601156)

For holography you want monochrome light, which means the light source will be lasers. Probably three diode lasers for R,G,B. Lasers are much more efficient than the incandescent bulbs used in projectors, which means that you will be able to put your PDA back in your pocket without second degree burns after using for a while.

The home page of one of the coauthors of the cited paper is here [cam.ac.uk] . It shows a hologram that takes a few seconds to generate on a 2 GHz PC. Pretty low quality, and presumably specialized hardware (which could probably be implemented as an FPGA) will be required to get it to video rates. But for static text type presentations, for the Powerpoint warriors who are the main market for projectors, speed is less important.

Re:What's the light source? (1)

ifwm (687373) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601173)

"That direction is more likely to result in smaller projectors than this "holographic" thing."

Well, considering they already have a proof of concept, and what you're proposing doesn't exist yet, I say you are dead wrong.

Re:What's the light source? (2, Funny)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601262)

Hmmm...

*replaces LCD headlight in car with holographic projector projecting image of oncoming truck to the car ahead*

Re:What's the light source? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601484)

Uh, from the article, it looks like the light source is a frick'n laser, and it doesn't require a frick'n shark's head.

I hate one chip DLPs. The rainbowing is ass until you get the 6x or better color wheels. The MMD chips are pretty small, but probably still too big for "pocket" projectors.

Great (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9601071)

since the device is being developed at Cambridge University maybe the owners manual and instructions will be written like this:

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Re:Great (1)

Triskele (711795) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601442)

Works for me - I understood what you wrote - whats your problem?

Cool, but potential for weird/annoying uses. (2, Interesting)

stoneymonster (668767) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601083)

I can imagine these things pointed at movie screens by bored teens. Or spot advertisements aimed at all sorts of surfaces-- building walls, bald peoples heads. How long before someone aims a multi-megawatt laser projector at the moon to sell us coke c2?

Heh - good point (1)

mao che minh (611166) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601150)

You ever held a flashlight out of a moving car at night, annoying people as the light cascades into their bedroom windows? That was pretty fun as a kid.

Now picture that, but only with a 24-bit high resolution image of someone's ass.

Re:Cool, but potential for weird/annoying uses. (1)

sploo22 (748838) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601170)

Just wait till they start projecting basilisk images! [nature.com] o_O

Re:Cool, but potential for weird/annoying uses. (1)

Saeger (456549) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601219)

Just wait till they start projecting basilisk images! o_O

Hah. On the conspiracy scale, a special image that can shutdown the human brain is 1000 times more bullshit than, say, the Philadelphia Experiment.

--

If I may be so bold... (1)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601085)

I think I speak for the majority of sane-minded people when I say this:

Seriously? In cellphones? WTF?

And (1, Redundant)

Spackler (223562) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601087)

Is that a video projecter in your pocket, or are you just glad to read slashdot?

Can it be used as a computer display? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Writer (746272) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601109)

The images were the same but contained different levels of noise. The researchers found that variation in noise levels affected people's perception of video quality more than the actual level of the noise.

I'm not familiar with holography, but doesn't the presence of noise mean that individual pixels won't be very clear? I suppose that would be okay for video, but what about using the projection as a computer display? Would it be good enough for text and fonts?

pr0n (1)

Mr. Spontaneous (784926) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601111)

Imagine the impact this will have on the porn industry........

Re:pr0n (0, Offtopic)

HoneyBunchesOfGoats (619017) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601144)

none?

The power (2, Funny)

mao che minh (611166) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601134)

"These pocket projectors will have no lenses and no light bulbs. Instead, these future battery-powered tiny projectors will rely on the in-born, raw nerd power of the geek that wears it."

errr.. batteries? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9601138)

"Hey guys, check out this hologram I just got! Just give me a second for me to plug my wireless phone into an electrical socket, so that my batteries don't get completely drained in 15 seconds."

Kind of defeats the purpose, huh? Already when I start using my video camera is limits my cell phone usage. Imagine the energy requirements for a hologram projector.

Let's forget about putting all this stuff in cell phones... let's concentrate on actually getting this in a real projector of some sort before we start making high-faluting promises of having everything in our freaking cell phones.

This micro projector saves laptops. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9601139)

Rather than attach a sixteen-ounce LCD panel to a laptop, you can as-well attach an unfolding cotton-clothe dome and project the image on its surface.

Low power, lighter, and when you need to wash the "screen" you just throw it in the laundry and thereafter dry and remove the lint.

And those of us that like to browse slashdot with *ahhem* one hand on their joystick and one hand on their *uhm* mouse, you won't regreat losing controll onto your monitor.

Help us Sony, Pioneer or Fujitsu! (3, Funny)

ManyLostPackets (646646) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601147)

Help us Sony, Pioneer or Fujitsu!

Focus group's of American electronic companys say no one is interested in such things!

Help us Sony, Pioneer or Fujitsu! You're our only hope!

Can't access the algorithm description (3, Informative)

gokeln (601584) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601157)

Primary author's homepage here http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~eb296/research.shtml The algorithm appears only to be available in the Journal of the Optical Society of America. Membership required to access.

I dont't know Sven-Erik, but he didn't wrote this (5, Interesting)

rpiquepa (644694) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601162)

Check this page ( http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/2004/07/03.html ) or this RSS feed ( http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/rss.xml ) to see what plagiarism is -- the exact words on my RSS feed. You also can check hours of publication. I'm not happy with this. Last month, someone opened a Slashdot account with my name. Now, "Sven-Erik" is publishing my own words, already submitted to Slashdot, and he's credited for this. Slashdot editors, please be careful! And "Sven-Erik," please indicate your sources!!!

just the next step (2, Interesting)

cybergrunt69 (730228) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601166)

This looks like it's going to be a great new product. While I'll probably never have a cell phone with one of these built into it, I can see it as the next logical step to be included in the standard PDA and notebook. For all we know now, that little laser pointer will have one too... So I wonder what it would take to get one of these items just by itself so I can hook it up as a monitor for my computers? Will it take the place of my clunky heavy TV, too? I'm very interested to see where this is going!

Am I missing something ? (3, Interesting)

sane? (179855) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601195)

Maybe I'm missing something, but surely you would store the holographic image data (eg the thing that drives the 2D microdisplay), rather than attempting to convert on the fly.

Therefore what you need, past the circuitry, is a good compression algorithm for the holographic data. This is unlikely to follow the precepts of the JPEG/MPEG compression (more oppotunity for patents methinks). Together with the display technology you then have a viable system.

Interesting technology, maybe, but not a complete solution yet.

Re:Am I missing something ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9601361)

you won't be able to store data if you're receiving a signal from another source (since you don't know what it is before hand). Also, I was at the SID presentation of this thing, the presenter admitted that it took about 20 minutes to create the data for one frame.

? 2-D hologram ? (3, Interesting)

James Turpin (789479) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601216)

What is a 2-D hologram?? I thought holograms were inherently 3-D, although they may sometimes be images of impossible objects.

Unfortunate (1)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601284)

While I think this will have some applications, this is definitely not the solution to the display problem plaguing small devices with even smaller screens, like cellphones.

I believe the real solution will be when they can display that screen hovering in the air wherever you want.

You see, the problem is that people don't want to have to worry about projecting something onto somewhere, they want to just have the screen in front of them, and a holographic screen that hovers where they want would do the trick.

Special Algorithms (3, Funny)

drooling-dog (189103) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601354)

special algorithms

The answer to this and most of life's other thorny problems, I expect...

Some really exciting possibilities (2, Insightful)

LeBlanc_Joey (756213) | more than 10 years ago | (#9601408)

Maybe it would be possibe for a computer to use both this and one of those projected keyboards [alpern.org] you could have a tiny useful device.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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