h a l f b a k e r yOh yeah? Well, eureka too.
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,
|
|
|
The idea is a product that uses photographic paper that directly produces a positive image from a computer display image, similar to color reversal film used for slides.
Advantages are that prints can be made anywhere and that the printout exactly matches screen size.
The product is sold in the
form of a box that contains five or ten sheets, each individually wrapped in a bag that excludes light. Each of these bags also has a small bag glued to it which contains a moistened towelette (similar to the towelettes with eau de cologne you might get on an airplane).
The product is used as follows: the user has an image on screen that he or she wants to print out. This could be at a public facility or at home. The user removes a sheet from its packaging and attaches it to the monitor. The sheet is static cling. It needs to be left on the screen for 30 seconds or so while the image on screen remains constant. The sheet is then peeled off the screen and carefully wiped down with the towelette. The towellette contains the fix chemical.
Note that the development step is skipped just as it would be with a photogram, which is made possible by the long exposure time.
This idea was inspired by comments from hippo and zen_tom in Jutta's "alpha channel focus indicator" about tear-off windows.
[link]
|
| |
Yes, i like. If the screen was also light-sensitive, it could be a scanner, display, fax and printer all in one. |
|
| |
Without an intervening lens, wouldn't this still produce a reversed mirror image on the photosensitive sheet? |
|
| |
If the sheets were transparent, the 'back' could then become the 'front', solving the problem of reversal. Or are we getting into the realms of magic? |
|
| |
jurist brings up a good and embarrassing point. In addition to this, the thick glass on CRT's could produce a blurry printout. I suggest we add: |
|
| |
- a backing that can be peeled off on the side away from the screen, so that we have a film (as jtp suggested). |
|
| |
- a layer on the display side that consists of tubes that restricts non-perpendicular incoming light. This layer can also be peeled off and when it is peeled off, an adhesive layer is uncovered. The film can then be stuck onto a piece of paper. |
|
| |
It's very regrettable that the product now becomes more complicated. I might hold a grudge against jurist. |
|
| |
How do these tubes restrict non-perpendicular light? Oh, wait, they could be black. |
|
| |
Correct, their walls could be black. |
|
| |
Why talk about CRTs? There are other display devices. I think there would be a problem with pixellation though. What appears OK on a display might look awful on a piece of paper. The resolution of a screen image can be a lot lower than one intended for a physical photograph before it starts to look ropey. |
|
| |
You're right displays have much lower resolutions then printers. I like the idea of being able to get a screen print anywhere you go, from any screen, even an ATM.This would be so handy that the shortcomings would be acceptable. |
|
| |
If you assume you have control over the computer system, you could stay with the simple system and just mirror the screen while you make your print. |
|
| |
And one could make time-lapse images (night sky pics) with sufficiently slow-moving video. Could make a much easier way to get that type of image. |
|
| |
The low resolution would be more noticeable up close, but would be less of an issue on an LCD screen particularly if its of the "glossy" variety (ie Macbook). |
|
| |