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!

New Research Could Lead to Transparent Displays

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the i'll-take-that-as-a-contact-lense-please dept.

Displays 85

An anonymous reader tipped us to a ScienceDaily story about advances that may lead to transparent transistors. By combining inorganic and organic materials, we may reach the goal of transparent surfaces that can display information, with no visible wiring marring the effect. The article cites HUDs on car windshields, and targeting goggles for soldiers, but I'm sure we can think of some additional interesting uses for such a technology. From the article: "High-performance, transparent transistors could be combined with existing kinds of light display technologies, such as organic light-emitting diodes, liquid crystal displays (LCDs) and electroluminescent displays, which are already used in televisions, desktop and laptop computers and cell phones ... Prototype displays using the transistors developed at Northwestern could be available in 12 to 18 months, said Marks. He has formed a start-up company, Polyera, to bring this and related technologies to market."

cancel ×

85 comments

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

What are you doing here?It's time for holiday ham! (5, Insightful)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355040)

Well, it's Christmas time here so I've got a little time to do some reading. And frankly, I'm excited to hear about the progress on greener technologies forthcoming next year. I was just reading about a projection TV set that will use laser to increase range-of-color and decrease power usage by a third -- win-win! And it got me to thinking; given that the average computer uses about 52,000 pine trees worth of energy every day there's probably a lot of slack that can be tightened up to restrict wasteful consumption. While one could probably save the most by dimming the 'Brightness' setting on his monitor, I strongly suspect the greatest savings will be realized by emphasizing energy saving technologies in the personal computer.

Sure, spending another hundred or so on efficient computing wouldn't make the video games run any faster, but if it was mandated we'd probably notice huge dividends in nationwide energy consumption. Energy that could then be used to run our cars, or air conditioning, or substinence farming. Until then I suppose we could just use the coal from our Christmas stockings to offset the electric bill, lol.

Re:What are you doing here?It's time for holiday h (1)

thc69 (98798) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355082)

the average computer uses about 52,000 pine trees worth of energy every day
Care to cite a link?

Also, from TFA:
Imagine a car windshield that displays a map to your destination
Nice idea, but we don't need high-tech transparent transistors. Existing HUD technology would do the job just fine.

Re:What are you doing here?It's time for holiday h (5, Funny)

AoT (107216) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355466)

Nice idea, but we don't need high-tech transparent transistors. Existing HUD technology would do the job just fine.

And I'm sure the transparent display would cost a lot more to fix.

Which means all car windshields should be made of it in about 10 years.

Electronic windshields?! (2, Funny)

PapayaSF (721268) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355628)

And I'm sure the transparent display would cost a lot more to fix.
Which means all car windshields should be made of it in about 10 years.

Indeed. And who wants a computer-controlled windshield that can crash all on its own? That would be a true Blue Screen of Death!

Re:Electronic windshields?! (3, Funny)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355834)

"Indeed. And who wants a computer-controlled windshield that can crash all on its own? That would be a true Blue Screen of Death!"

Exactly. I could install it on my Delorean, travel back to 1999, and find that joke funny!

Re:Electronic windshields?! (1)

surajbarkale (877769) | more than 7 years ago | (#17358820)

Not to mentioned the "Place Sensitive Ads" a certain company is planning to provide in order to bring the costs down.

Re:What are you doing here?It's time for holiday h (1)

solitas (916005) | more than 7 years ago | (#17358290)

>>Which means all car windshields should be made of it in about 10 years.

Of course it would cost a lot more to fix - and the insurance companies will be orgasmically happy to pass the exorbitant costs unto you; just make sure you never piss anyone off: free glass replacement will be a thing of the past (if all the insurance companies refuse to give you free windshields they'll all be in cahoots with each other to deny you ANY free glass replacement). And replacing a transparent-display windshield (which, naturally, will do-away with all your dashboard instrumentation - so you COULDN'T replace it with a cheaper then-traditional plain one) could be likely to end-up costing you kilobucks (look at what 'opaque' windshield-sized LCD screens cost now - transparent ones will cost more).

("Windshields are made to look through; not at." ~ R.Lasecki)

Re:What are you doing here?It's time for holiday h (2, Interesting)

binkzz (779594) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355468)

I think it may be the same guy who was trying to start a rumour that the average computer used the equivalent half a container ship of coal to run each day.

Re:What are you doing here?It's time for holiday h (1)

eclectro (227083) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355536)

there's probably a lot of slack that can be tightened up to restrict wasteful consumption.

You mean cancel the holidays??

Re:What are you doing here?It's time for holiday h (2, Insightful)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355692)

Quit worrying about that crap. 52000 pine trees? The coal puts CO2 in the air enough for 52000 pine trees to be very happy and make more sugar (photosynthesis results in food...). Even if we burned trees for power, when you cut down a tree in America you need to plant 2 more elsewhere; there's a whole tree-planting industry, the foresters and developers just pay someone when they tear out a chunk of woodlands so they go somewhere else and put down more trees; some of the newly planted ones die, overpopulation of an area causes about half of them give or take to get crowded out, and everything is preserved (we have more trees now than we did long ago).

Energy efficiency will come when it's a good business move, no sooner. When the government mandates spending ~$100 more per machine to make it energy-efficient, the manufacturers will use it as an excuse to charge ~$300 more and ramp up sales. When businesses demand cooler, more energy-efficient servers because it costs them $200/hr to AC the server room and $6000/hr to power all the machines, Intel and AMD will offer them $8000 more expensive CPUs that save them $1000/hr.

How about you? Worry about your wallet instead of national energy consumption; move to solar water heating, CFLs, a geothermal heat pump, and tack on some solar panels to kill off your electric and heating bill. Your expenses drop by $500/month and the $20,000 you spend pays for itself in about 2 years. If your neighbors want to eat 5 times the power you do, then who cares? They're not important; when the grid can only supply you with a few kWh/month, you can drop in some storage batteries to power your house at night and go fully independent of them.

I for one am not paying for gas and electric when I buy a house. I'm sealing the leaks; heat-proofing the roof; putting in a custom water heating/heating/power generating solar collector (dense energy collector, my own design, super-efficient); maybe some solar panels if they can outperform my dense energy collector (I can get 35% efficiency for electricity, or sacrifice electricity generation for 90% efficiency heating DIRECTLY from the collector); switching to energy efficient geothermal heat pumps and electrical stove/oven, as well as electrical water heater back-up in case the solar collector can't heat the water. I should overproduce by about 400-900% of what I need (electric; direct, possibly 3 times that if I can make a more efficient system). This is a good business move; I can sell the overproduced power back to the electric company and make money.

Re:What are you doing here?It's time for holiday h (1)

Leebert (1694) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362486)

Your expenses drop by $500/month and the $20,000 you spend pays for itself in about 2 years.


Good LORD how much money are you spending on electricity? My bill runs around $100/month, upwards around $200/month in winter. At that rate it would take at least 8 years to pay for itself.

Re:What are you doing here?It's time for holiday h (1)

Terminal Saint (668751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356010)

52,000 pine trees worth of energy

What's that in burning libraries of congress?

Re:What are you doing here?It's time for holiday h (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356174)

While one could probably save the most by dimming the 'Brightness' setting on his monitor, I strongly suspect the greatest savings will be realized by emphasizing energy saving technologies in the personal computer.


Apparently, shutting off lights and using the dryer less would be more effective [slashdot.org] .

52,000 trees - false (1)

Wierdy1024 (902573) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356398)

52,000 trees must be false - think about what happens when you burn just one log in your fireplace - it gets very hot and burns for a few hours. Now consider leaving your computer on for a few hours - it gets quite hot. Where is there more energy - one computer running for a few hours, or a decent size chunk of wood burning for a few hours.

And if thats just 1 chunk of wood, then how much energy is there in 52,000 trees worth?

I don't have the data here to work it out precisely, since you didn't give much info in your post about your sources, but I'd say you are around a factor of 500,000 out in your calculations!

Re:52,000 trees - false (1)

robgig1088 (1043362) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356780)

yeah your computer uses .5 kilowatts (ballpark. and thats at full load). multiply that by 24 and you get 12kw*hr. now last I checked, electricity was $.11 per kilowatt hour. so that costs like $1.00/day. are you saying that a pine tree costs 1/520 of a cent =p =p. I think what the article you read said 52,000 on a total ;-). anyway I totally agree with you that theres alot more that could be done to save the environment, but it needs to be done quickly =\

Re:52,000 trees - false (1)

name*censored* (884880) | more than 7 years ago | (#17358164)

Your computer would draw more like .7KWs on peak, when you consider peripherals (monitors/HIDs/speakers/routers+switches)..

But (GP) what is this about pine forests being hurt? Did you mean, if the electricity is used to operate chainsaws maybe? If anything, the carbon mono/dio-xide is to them what oxygen is to us.. Perhaps the article you read said that ideally, we need another 52,000 trees/year (for XYZ years) planted to catch up to our carbon gas outputs?

[On Topic] Wow this technology sounds awesome... it would be ideal as a "frontdrop" for holographic technology... or even better, just use this technology and a complex array of mirrors! bam, 3DTV.

Re:What are you doing here?It's time for holiday h (3, Interesting)

robgig1088 (1043362) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356806)

Hmmm... what if we could stack sheets of these together? Hello 3-dimensional television?

Re:What are you doing here?It's time for holiday h (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 7 years ago | (#17357630)

Then it'd cost $n^2 times as much!

Re:What are you doing here?It's time for holiday h (2, Funny)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 7 years ago | (#17358034)

What are you doing here?It's time for holiday ham!

I'm Jewish you insensitive clod!

Re:What are you doing here?It's time for holiday h (1)

Maelwryth (982896) | more than 7 years ago | (#17358188)

"52,000 pine trees worth of energy every day".......wtf? I really hope that was a misprint. Maybe you meant all the average computers in the world?

Find a way around having a fan in the power supply would be good though.

Re:What are you doing here?It's time for holiday h (1)

loki_tiwaz (982852) | more than 7 years ago | (#17359066)

not sure where to reply here but i thought it should be mentioned that hud displays for helmets have to be focussed at a usably distant viewing focal point. ever noticed it takes nearly a second to switch between rear view and forward view? there already exists huds for cars which put the speedometer about 2 metres forward of the driver. i've always wondered why this isn't standard but i bet there is a reason why, something to do with reliability of the device. making a rear view display on the same sort of basis would be quite useful too, it'd cut focus switching in half.

i'm pretty sure there's very practical reasons why this does not yet exist.

i'm also pretty sure there's a limited practical market for transparent displays. an attractive novelty to be relegated to pseudo computer geekiness on movies and sold at novelty toy shops like those plasma lamps are. the main problem is that black text on white is much more readable. text with textures and other text behind it is nearly unreadable. if it's blurred so as to be unreadable it might be useful but even then... perhaps useful for something like a pop-out display for a mobile phone... i'm really having trouble thinking of practical uses for a display which you can see through.

Re:What are you doing here?It's time for holiday h (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 7 years ago | (#17360802)

given that the average computer uses about 52,000 pine trees worth of energy every day - I will not be satisfied until I have a computer in each appliance at home, including the fridge and the water faucet. I do not like XMas, so hopefully burning 52,000,000 pine trees a day could be used to stop this dreadfull holiday.

Sure, spending another hundred or so on efficient computing wouldn't make the video games run any faster, but if it was mandated we'd probably notice huge dividends in nationwide energy consumption. - I would continue buying the cheaper undeground versions of hardware and leave the more expensive 'mandated' versions for you to burn your money on.

Re:What are you doing here?It's time for holiday h (1)

deepvoid (175028) | more than 7 years ago | (#17360910)

One average computer uses 52,000 pine trees worth of energy a day? Thats, oh, about 10 billion watts of energy given the average dimemsions of a pine tree. If that's the case, my electric bill should be ALOT higher.

Male Brain At Work (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355084)

"Honey, you look great in that new bikini I bought you. Oh darny darn, the batteries wore out, making it kinda like see-thru."

Re:Male Brain At Work (2, Interesting)

The Zon (969911) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355316)

If I were your wife, I'd be less concerned about the display disappearing and more concerned about my electric bikini frying me when I go into the water.

Actually, strike that. I'd be most concerned about the fact that you bought me a pair of television screens to use as a swimsuit.

I'm slow but... (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355106)

I don't see the advantage of having a transparent display. What's next, invisible ink? Cold fire? Inaudible music? Those may have very narrow fields of applications, but com on, for general use, give me functionality!

Re:I'm slow but... (1)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355188)

I don't see the advantage of having a transparent display.

Projection units that use less energy since less light is blocked. Cars with regular mechanical gauges (easier to read than a digital dash) with a map display superimposed on the dashboard glass.

-b.

Re:I'm slow but... (3, Interesting)

ubergamer1337 (912210) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355216)

"What's next, invisible ink? Cold fire? Inaudible music?
Invisible Ink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_ink [wikipedia.org]
Cold Fire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ColdHeat [wikipedia.org]
Inaudible Music: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4'33%22 [wikipedia.org]

Three very known and legitimate versions of your 3 "useless" objects. Just because something is an oxymoron, doesn't make it stupid

Re:I'm slow but... (1)

penguinwhoflew (904673) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356272)

Well... the inaudible music IS pretty stupid IMHO, and the Cold Heat thing isn't really cold heat, it's rapidly cooling heat. But yeah, invisible ink isn't stupid.

Re:I'm slow but... (1)

dastardly_villain (777858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17357724)

I too thought 4'3" was BS too when I first heard about it but the more I learned about John Cage and his work, the more it made sense. 4'3" is more about questions than the piece itself. As an experimental artist, it's only his nature to question the rules that define the genre. What makes a composition a composition? What defines performance? The fact that people think it's stupid doesn't make it any less relevant than the work of Bach or Mozart. His previous and subsequent work, all prove he's more than competent as a composer. This was just a statement about the pretentiousness of the esteemed art community. IMHO it took balls to do it and risk credibility as a serious composer. Furthermore, I'll go so far as to say that the four minutes and thirty-three seconds of John Cage's composition is more listenable than half the for minute songs I hear making it to radio these days. But that's just me being pretentious in my own right! ;)

Re:I'm slow but... (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 7 years ago | (#17357380)

If you read about 4'33", the whole point of the piece is that there is sound, even if it's not being produced by the performer. So it isn't inaudible music at all, it's more audible non-music.

Re:I'm slow but... (2, Interesting)

ImEric12 (712870) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355286)

Think more along the lines of a window that doubles as a display. Not only does it save energy, but it makes for much better integration of technology in the household, or anywhere else for that matter.

Re:I'm slow but... (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355590)

Instead of having the television on the dashboard of the car you'll be able to watch your favourite dvd displayed on the windshield, think virtual 52" television.

Re:I'm slow but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17355716)

I don't see the advantage of having a transparent display. What's next, invisible ink? Cold fire? Inaudible music? Those may have very narrow fields of applications, but com on, for general use, give me functionality!

How about every window in your house is now a big screen TV/Display with a click of a remote?

Re:I'm slow but... (1)

mmdog (34909) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356424)

You could put it on a bathroom mirror so you could look at your calendar or watch the news or whatever while you prepare for your day. Maybe seniors could have a reminder of which pills to take displayed on the door of the medicine cabinet.

On top of all that, let's not forget it would open all sort of new possibilities for watching pr0n.

What's the point of Transparent displays? (0)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355132)

I need to see my display to use it. How is a transparent display going to work?

Re:What's the point of Transparent displays? (2, Informative)

NeuroKoan (12458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355170)

I think the point is that the displays are completely transparent when off but become partially or fully opaque when they are displaying images.

Re:What's the point of Transparent displays? (1)

fireboy1919 (257783) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356066)

Like this. [ebay.com]

Next up, a new-fangled serial interface that can do over 10MB/sec, a new optical technology that can read and burn data using a laser (to store around 9GB of data/disc), and a new kind of wireless communication to use your phone over the internet!

Astounding and amazing new things!

Re:What's the point of Transparent displays? (1)

emurphy42 (631808) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356292)

Oh, ha ha. And what if I don't want the display to be susceptible to objects passing between the projector and screen?

Re:What's the point of Transparent displays? (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356536)

Applying what I've seen in movies (which means this info comes with a bag of salt) to answering your question I'd have to say that the display is transparent but the text and graphics are not. Of course if the background is black and your font is black you may run into some issues. Even if this has no practical application there are tons of things that CS people do just for the fun of it, if only for a few minutes to find out it wasn't as useful as they hoped and is more annoying than anything else. We have to at least try it.

Re:What's the point of Transparent displays? (1)

xycadium (908098) | more than 7 years ago | (#17359774)

I need to see my display to use it. How is a transparent display going to work?

Didn't you see the Zion Control Room [flickr.com] scene from Matrix Reloaded?

HUD for windshields (1)

robvangelder (472838) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355182)

I've always thought this would be great for law enforcement.
Imagine if a driver of a police car could see the speed of other cars - a speedometer hovering over the roofline.
Or, combined with license plate recognition, could see the wanted/stolen status of cars.

Re:HUD for windshields (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17355472)

I don't think anyone would want to use one of these as a HUD by simply gluing them to the windscreen. If that were the case, the user would have to change between focusing an object only 2 feet away, and focusing the road, at least ten times as far away. With this, a large part of the advantage of HUDs would be lost, namely that the displayed data becomes part of the scene by appearing to hover a few yards away.

Re:HUD for windshields (1)

TheJorge (713680) | more than 7 years ago | (#17358496)

...unless everyone started wearing stylish red/blue lensed glasses and the displays displayed everything in dupicate. Then as the images could be "placed" any distance you want from the viewer.

Of course, there are probably slightly higher tech ways of doing this, but still...

Re:HUD for windshields (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356568)

Or, combined with license plate recognition, could see the wanted/stolen status of cars.

This is already possible and some police departments in the US already use this technology on a daily basis in their cruisers to nab stolen vehicles. The UK used it first and I think Chicago and departments in California are using it in the US. There was an article in Wired a year ago approximately that talked about it but i'm too lazy to look up the Wired URL for you, sorry.

Always a parade walking by window... (1)

Capn_Snazzy (785218) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355198)

I would like the technology to replace my current transparent sheets of glass (I hate windows) and add some nicer details to the outdoors, a parade of naked women , some clowns getting trampled by some dinosaurs and maybe the odd vortex. Outdoors v2.

Macs with transparent displays (4, Interesting)

srk (49331) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355224)

There is a bunch of concepts for how to use the transparent displays. Most of all I like this: http://www.gizmowatch.com/entry/eye-freezing-futur e-imac-concept/ [gizmowatch.com] May be it will become true some time soon....

The Voyage Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17355240)

I want Spock's computer from Star Trek IV. Give me that display, Jonathan Ive, and I'll gladly live in your future.

The Internet is really really great... (2)

aredubya74 (266988) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355268)

...but I'm sure we can think of some additional interesting uses for such a technology
For porn [youtube.com] !

Re:The Internet is really really great... (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355366)

At least link to the proper video [avenueq.com] rather than a lame wow ripoff.. jeez...

Re:The Internet is really really great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17357254)

The WoW version is better and longer. Why would you link to the inferior one?

Pictures (3, Funny)

loconet (415875) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355314)

Here are the first pictures [flickr.com] of this technology

Re:Pictures (1)

chrisb33 (964639) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355606)

Great pictures - I especially like the one with the hand holding the calculator [flickr.com] . A cool extension of this would be to have the desktop display an x-ray image of what's behind it.

Ugly chicks of the world rejoice! (2, Funny)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355358)

These could make for some seriously fantastic, 24x7 beer googles.

Are you an ugly chick? Let your lover wear these transparent transistor glasses, and pretend that you're Natalie Portman.

As long as you can stand hot grits down your pants, you should be able to get as much nookie as you can stand.

Re:Ugly chicks of the world rejoice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17356654)

Unfortunately, they can't change the fact that you're an asshole.

This would make a lousy HUD (4, Insightful)

El Puerco Loco (31491) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355494)

The whole point of a HUD is that you don't have to shift focus between the display and objects in the environment. In aircraft HUDs, the image is collimated, so it appears to be focused wherever the pilot happens to be looking at the time. This can't be achieved by simply putting a transparent monitor on the windscreen in front of your eyes, it requires a projection system. The type of display they are talking about here would not be much better than a regular instrument panel, because you would still need to shift focus from the outside environment to the windscreen. The same goes for a targeting system built into goggles, it would be useless because you would need to shift your focus to the targeting display a few inches from your eye to the target several hundred meters away.

Re:This would make a lousy HUD (3, Insightful)

wingbat (88117) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355800)

You're assuming this can't be combined with the technology behind 3D LCD monitors (already commercial), where each eye sees a different image because of its angle...

Re:This would make a lousy HUD (5, Informative)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356332)

He's assuming that because it can't. There are two aspects to depth perception, one is the angle of the image with regards to the eye's direction, the other is the optical focus of the eye itself.

The focus of the image is the result of the latter. To demonstrate this, get a magic marker and draw a picture onto a pair of swimming goggles. Then try to wear the goggles, and focus on the image you have drawn on them at the same time as an object in the distance.

Spoiler: you will not be able to.

Re:This would make a lousy HUD (1)

deepvoid (175028) | more than 7 years ago | (#17360922)

So that's why I saw that guy down by the beach with happy faces drawn on his glasses mumbling to himself...

What's the difference... (2)

Tjeerd (976354) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355524)

...with existing technologies like used by for example Universal Display [universaldisplay.com] , where they use transparent OLEDS?

contrast control (3, Insightful)

Speare (84249) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355548)

Everyone thinks that transparent displays are a really cool idea until they try to actually look at one in uncontrolled lighting situations. Minority Report displays weren't real, folks, and the special effects crew could ignore physics to make it happen. The key to being able to see things is contrast. If this thing isn't actively both shadowing and emitting, the display will be totally useless in light areas or dark areas or both.

Re:contrast control (2, Interesting)

Evil Pete (73279) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355782)

Yeah it's a bit like when you first tried transparent terms. Eterm in my case (pause for a bit of nostalgia). Really really cool looking. But actually using it was less wonderful. Sadly transparent terms are not a good idea, even with tinting. 'Cept for showing off your OS ... definitely a winner with chicks.

Re:contrast control (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 7 years ago | (#17361882)

It depends. If you have an application where a part of the window rarely contains information setting it to ~80% opacity can allow you to track stuff happening in a window in the background while still being able to completely ignore it if you want to (given that the second window fits into the "dead" region).

Of course pseudo-transparent windows like the traditional "transparent" terminals found with KDE and Gnome are pretty pointless.

I'd stack 'em (2, Interesting)

MadCow42 (243108) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355556)

Stack about 30 or so transparent displays on top of each other and create a true 3-D display - albeit limited in number of layers of depth to the number of screens. Anyone with a 30-head video card for me? :)

MadCow.

Re:I'd stack 'em (1)

BostonVaulter (867329) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356078)

Interesting, but wouldn't you still be able to see through it? Or would active pixels block light from passing through?

Re:I'd stack 'em (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17357264)

Isn't that kind of the point? Things in the foreground SHOULD block view of things in the background when simulating 3D. If it was all transparent, that'd be... weird. Not un-useful, just weird.

Re:I'd stack 'em (1)

BostonVaulter (867329) | more than 7 years ago | (#17357304)

Yeah, I agree that it would be weird. But it seems like it would probably be easier than making ones that could block light. So early models may not block light so well.

Re:I'd stack 'em (1)

salec (791463) | more than 7 years ago | (#17359128)

I'd stack them too, for other purpose: as highly efficient PV batteries (well, if you make a transistor, I guess you made a couple of PN junctions, so why not...), up to the depth where almost all of the light gets absorbed.

damn. (1)

carninja (792514) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355736)

I just wrote a technical report on this idea two months ago. I should have patented that shit.

Stuck pixels (3, Insightful)

null etc. (524767) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355740)

Can you imagine how aggravating a stuck pixel will be if it's on your HUD or glasses? My friend has an LCD TV with 3 stuck pixels. I understand the conditions which encourage manufacturers not to accept the exchange of a set unless it has 7 or more stuck pixels, but come on; do you know how fleeced my friend feels, knowing that he paid the same amount of money for a display that has 3 glaring defects which affect his viewing pleasure, whereas his other friends paid the same price for a set with no stuck pixels?

try the lcd fix programs (2)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356048)

Flashing white to black for 24hrs might fix it, try it.

Re:Stuck pixels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17356854)

A dead pixel on an eye-centered HUD display would be less noticeable than a stuck pixel on a television screen. Your eyes already have a blind spot each and the brain knows how to extrapolate seen images to fill those spots. When you get a new blind spot by staring at a laser or sticking a small piece of paper onto the eyeglass lens, then brain will learn to work around those too in a week or two.

Re:Stuck pixels (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 7 years ago | (#17358094)

Blind spots can be a serious hazard when they're in the primary field of vision. Long term there will be some fix, but it's not something you can just dismiss. And something that takes a "week or two" to adjust to (when it need not exist at all) probably isn't ready for general use.

Repeat after me (2, Informative)

belg4mit (152620) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355798)

TRANSLUCENT

How about? (2, Interesting)

Mycroft_514 (701676) | more than 7 years ago | (#17355848)

The inside of my dive mask, to show up the data on my dive computer? There is something like it which uses the edges of the mask, but this would be better.

Oblig (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356014)

In Soviet Amerika displays are seen through by YOU.

But, (1)

EdMack (626543) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356394)

But I want to see my display!

SIGGRAPH (1)

yosofun (933530) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356578)

haven't they already achieve screens like this, as portrayed in the Fashion shows @ SIGGRAPH?

Transparent displays are nice and all, (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356622)

but I think we really need some research into how to create transparent politicians. I think that would be more valuable in the long run.

patended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17356830)

typical.. but necessary?

Web 2.0 - See Me, Look at me (1)

E1v!$ (267945) | more than 7 years ago | (#17357340)

The easiest app, put a webcam behind the damned screen. I'd rather look at the hottie I'm cybering with all the time.

Next up: transparent pants!

layer them for 3d (1)

rbunker (1003580) | more than 7 years ago | (#17357500)

This is really interesting. Presumably one could put a bunch of these in layers and make a 3d display.

HAL 9000? (1)

nosecsforu (1043450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17359262)

Didn't HAL have transparent circut boards? When Dave was turning him off by pulling a bunch of circut boards, it seems like they were transparent. But maybe that was StarTrek when Wesley was drunk and pulled a bunch of boards and then had to put them back in. I'm just going on memory here, so it might just be my transparent imagination...
Check for New 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>