h a l f b a k e r yWe are investigating the problem and will update you shortly.
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,
|
|
|
This is an idea to increase the number of apparent
pixels displayed on a computer screen, by using a
vibrating device to physically relocate the actual pixels.
Imagine shaking one's computer display, at very high
speed, horizontally, with an amplitude of one half of
the distance between pixel
widths.
We time this vibration such that the display shows one
image in it's leftmost position, and another image in it's
rightmost position.
This effectively doubles the horizontal resolution.
Obviously, we would want to vibrate a display vertically
as well as horizontally, probably phased to produce a
circular motion, with a radius selected so that if we
take N equally timed samples, they will have a distance
between them of the inter-pixel distance / N. Or
something like that.
This idea could be thought of the image display analog
of the microscanning image capture method.
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.)
|
| |
I like this, but the display would hum at something
around middle C, would it not? |
|
| |
I like this idea, but as an alternative, perhaps a vibrating helmet would accomplish the same thing? |
|
| |
Or create a layer of LCD windows in front of the main
screen, where each pixel of the window is 1/4 the
size of a pixel on the main screen. Then just "open"
alternate sets of windows and sync this with the
pixels underneath... |
|
| |
I think the native refresh rate of the monitor would need to be increased sufficiently so that the mechanical vibration could be fast enough not to cause a flickering effect. The refresh rate would need to be a multiple of the vibration rate. |
|
| |
There are going to be all sorts of image artefacts to somehow overcome ... |
|
| |
My thesis advisor taught me to perform a "raspberry" - i.e to blow through one's lips in order to vibrate one's eyes vertically to differentiate various time - related traces on an oscilloscope. |
|
| |
Works very well at audio frequencies. I suppose it could work in this application by turning one's head sideways. |
|
| |
Keep the display static and vibrate the head. Hum up display. |
|
| |
Interesting; I think a similar approach was taken on early
digital cameras to try and double the res of the sensor. |
|
| |
//early digital cameras// |
|
| |
Believe it or not, the first digital camera was built
in 1813, by Thomas von Soemmering. It had 64
"pixels", each consisting of a six-inch square of
silver iodide overlayed with a fine mesh of silver
wires, and was mounted on a wooden frame which
could be moved around, and also raised and
lowered. |
|
| |
Soemmering set his apparatus up in a disused
barrel factory, and blanked out all the windows
except for a large circular aperture which turned
the room into a giant camera obscura. Over the
course of four days, repositioning the pixel array
several hundred times and writing down the
voltages of each pixel each time, he managed to
record the very first digital photograph on squared
paper. The resolution was 640 x 320 pixels, which
is not that far short of the early modern digital
cameras. |
|
| |
[Edit - I forgot to mention that, although his
pixels were six inches on a side, he took his image
as four superimposed images, offset by three
inches. So, depending on how he deconvoluted
the data, is actual resolution could have been
1280 x 640 pixes, or almost a megapixel.] |
|
| |
God knows I've wanted to shake the daylights out of my computer from time to time... |
|
| |
[+] I don't quite understand it but it sounds cool! |
|
| |