h a l f b a k e r yPlease listen carefully, as our opinions have changed.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Displays can be expensive. Looking briefly on eBay, i
found a thirty " TFT LCD for three hundred-odd quid and
a
fifteen " one for fifty, which look about the same
quality.
The first is only four times the size of the second but six
times the price.
My solution is this: Make an eight
"
monitor at VGA resolution which costs maybe twenty
quid,
with a socket, hinged bevels and a good PSU. Opening
the
hinges reveals slots which can be used to plug in other
monitors of the same resolution, seamlessly but with
flexible joints. When this is done, firmware within the
monitor upgrades it to its new shape and resolution, and
circuitry of some kind of hand-wavy type allows it to be
used as part of the display. The main monitor is plugged
into the device using the display and automatically
upgrades the resolution options accordingly on the
display
driver.
There are two advantages to this: cost and
shape. The display can be rectangular, square,
cruciform,
letter- or word-shaped, stacked in a pyramid
arrangement
or maybe in a horizontal ring or a cuboid to simulate
three
dimensions, all of which is communicated to the monitor
driver. Costwise, you could develop a serious monitor
addiction and end up buying a monitor a week for a year,
ending up with a potential horizontal resolution of thirty
thousand pixels or a potential vertical one of twenty-four
thousand, though not at the same time.
In the
meantime, the company making the monitors wins,
since
even people with hardly any money can buy them and
gradually upgrade, providing a more reliable income
from a
larger slice of the population.
Alternate tech
http://www.mirasold...play-technology.php
I thought of an Idea like the main topic here some time ago, but for this particular technology, because it is far superior to LCD screens. Since it was such a niche idea, though, I never posted it. [Vernon, Jun 19 2009]
Smart sand display
Smart_20sand_20display
Try this then [nineteenthly, Jun 23 2009]
About lightpipes
http://www2.electro...r-jun2005-html.aspx
[BunsenHoneydew, Jun 27 2009]
Lightpipes
http://en.wikipedia..._electronic_devices
Obligatory wikipedia article [BunsenHoneydew, Jun 27 2009]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
The hard bit would be getting it to display pixels right up to the edge. |
|
| |
I agree. How about having a pixel-free transparent
edge at the front acting as a prism and the last few
rows at an angle? The bevel works that way too, so
it technically doesn't display them up to the edge,
but refracts the next lot of pixels into the gap. Then
again, i could be talking bollocks. |
|
| |
Lovely in principle, but I'm not too sure in practice. |
|
| |
For starters, 8" LCD monitors at VGA or better are hideously expensive, compared to the current "standard" size for desktop computer use. I've been searching for a cheapish one for a hardware hack for ages. I guess it has to do with the smaller monitors being a niche product, whereas the larger ones benefit from economy of scale and competition. |
|
| |
Still, even if this was based on perplexingly cheaper 15" or 17" LCDs, you end up selling a base display with a much more capable controller PCB than it would otherwise contain, thus raising the entry price compared to the competition. |
|
| |
The promise of future expandability would also have to compete with simply buying a second, complete, LCD monitor - and given the higher entry point, quite favourably. |
|
| |
And I'm betting there would be competitor lock-out on the expansion panels, through non-standard connectors, for example. It would be great to be able to drop in bare LCD panels from any supplier - even if restricted to a single model - but I can't see the business case for that for the maker of the base unit. |
|
| |
Still, I want one couriered to my door by yesterday [+] |
|
| |
On the other hand, one of the larger manufacturers who actually make their own LCD panels (like Sharp or Samsung) could go for this. Hmmm... |
|
| |
Existing LCD display technologies require connections along at least one horizontal edge and one vertical edge. I don't know how you plan to allow for a seamless join. It might be possible to relatively seamlessly construct a large display from four smaller ones, but each of those displays would have to be specially constructed according to is role (upper-left, upper-right, lower-left, or lower-right). |
|
| |
Maybe go for the cheaper, bigger screens then, [BunsenHoneydew]. The advantage of arranging the screens in different patterns remains.
Seamless joins? Well, how about either curving the screens at the edges but refracting them into position, so the edge isn't where it appears to be but behind the display? Or, have them slot together in the same directions. That would restrict the arrangement possibilities. |
|
| |
//Seamless joins? Well, how about either curving the screens at the edges but refracting them into position, so the edge isn't where it appears to be but behind the display?// |
|
| |
For some loss of efficiency, one could use a screen that was smaller than the display surface, and then have it connected to the display surface via fiber-optic cables. If one did that, it might be practical to have seamless screens, which would in turn allow enhanced yield ratios and make certain types of repairs practical. |
|
| |
Depending upon how well fiber optics can work over moderate distances, it might be practical to segregate the red, green, and blue pixels so that each color of pixels may be lit by an appropriate-color light source. The efficiency gain from doing that (as distinct from using a white light source and color-filtering each pixel) might outweigh or at least offset the loss from the fiber optics. |
|
| |
That sounds like a workable option, but i'm puzzled by what you mean by "moderate distances". Considering that laser light is regularly sent over fibre optic cables kilometres in length (i think), is there a difficulty in sending LED light over a few centimetres? |
|
| |
When sending laser signals over a group of fibers, it won't matter if all fibers attenuate their signals by different amounts. Differences between pixels in a display screen, however, would likely be noticeable and objectionable. If one had a good calibration method it might be possible to compensate for variations in fiber by varying the brightness of the driving pixels, but if most pixels' peak brightness had to be limited to allow the worst fibers to provide enough light, that would eliminate some of the efficiency gained by using separate LCDs for red, green, and blue. |
|
| |
Ah, so you're talking about redundancy over a distance? In that case, i wonder if there are any transparent photoelectric materials, because they could be used to calibrate the light by picking it up at the end, comparing it to the intended frequency and adjusting the brightness accordingly. I have another plan now. |
|
| |
"circuitry of some kind of hand-wavy type" |
|
| |
I would suggest a fresnel type lens overlaid on the LCD could be used to displace an unmodified panel a few pixels to the left, right, up, or down, to align with the edges of the central display |
|
| |
BTW - which of the LCD join suggestions here could work for a folding (clamshell) phone/media player/PDA? |
|
| |
Concept is a (roughly) A5 display from a (roughly) A6 size device. |
|
| |
Particularly if the screens are touch sensitive & ideally haptic feedback enabled -> allowing the device to display whatever input interface (numpad, QWERTY, custom form, etc) is appropriate, on one and/or both screens. |
|
| |
I had always thought we had to wait for (effective) folding LCD screens ... but maybe not? (esp. given that it doesn't need to be continually expandable and there is only one join to work on) |
|
| |
[BunsenHoneydew], that sounds possible. I assume the grooves on the lens would be of the same size roughly as the pixels, or smaller. Are you thinking of a thin strip along the edges?
[Kindachewy], if you're going to do that, it could maybe fold into four rather than two, since it seems there'd be enough free edges to allow that. Are there not displays which can be rolled up? |
|
| |
No, I was thinking the entire panel would have to be displaced the required amount, so there would be no stretching distortion at the edges, and no need for customised panels and/or display drivers. Yes, the grooves would need to align with the pixel pitch, unless they were extremely finely grated. |
|
| |
I guess by "fresnel lens", I really mean whatever geometry of cheap, stamped out plastic most resembles a fine grid of lightpipes [link] with the required, matching, kinks and twists in them |
|
| |
The display could be arranged in such a way that, without the lens, the pixels are smaller at the edges and magnified and displaced, which is what i think you have in mind, but that sounds expensive. |
|
| |
Trying to use imaging optics to enlarge or displace a virtual image will yield a picture whose size and location depend upon the viewer's position. If one were to arrange a matrix of LCD screens with fresnel lenses in front of them, it may be possible to place them so someone standing exactly the right distance away would see the screens exactly touching, but anyone at any other distance would see the screens either too small (leaving gaps) or too big (obscuring the edges obscured). |
|
| |
If one used a ground-class screen and used imaging optics to produce real images thereon, one could generate images using multiple LCDs and, if one got the alignment perfect, place the images adjacent to each other seamlessly. Getting the adjustment just right might be difficult, but it would be possible. If one is going to do that, however, it might be more practical to simply use a projection set from the get-go. |
|
| |
Other than the hexagonality, that sounds like my
linked idea. |
|
| |
lol, thought it sounded familiar. |
|
| |