Slashdot Mirror
Paper Capable Of Playing Videos Developed
Makarand writes "Nature has posted an article describing paper capable of displaying video using rearrangeable electronic ink, being produced by Philips Research Labs (in the Netherlands). The paper-display draws
power from a lightweight battery, and displays data stored in a portable chip. The display consists of pixels containing a drop of colored ink that can spread over a reflective white background under electrical control to create colors. With fast switching times and lower switching voltages, these paper-displays are capable of displaying video images."
Here's the BBC's slant on the news: Electronic paper prepares for video.
They're already up to 80 Hz refresh (12-13 ms respnose times). That's pretty damn impressive for a technology that's still in the basic R&D stage, and it augurs well for the future.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Boring...they had all that in Harry Potter two years ago, and oil paintings that talk ;-)
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
I worked in a pre-press shop for a couple of years, so I've worked with printing on a very low level. The color dots don't need to be directly stacked on one another to achieve a certain color. In fact each color is printed at a seperate angle so the dots are rarely directly on top of one another
Take a magnifying glass to your sunday comics and you can see that the black dots are at one angle (usually straight up and down) and each other color is rotated slightly. Even at relatively large dot sizes (72 dpi) the dots seem to merge together to form whatever color they're looking for.
Since the dots are arranged in groups of four in this paper you could achieve the same result, except it may look a bit more like a computer image (made up of distinct pixels in a grid) as opposed to a magazine picture (pixels for each color are rotated). It also sounds like they can make the dots whatever size they want, which is how it is done in printing:
The larger the applied voltage, the more the ink retracts. The ink is therefore capable of a continuous grey scale, not just of a two-tone contrast.
And even if the dots were stacked directly on top of each other it would still work. The ink is spread so thin that it's transparent, that's why yellow on top of magenta shows as red. So if they could stack it somehow it would show correctly (assuming the ink they use is like regular ink in that way).
It is not a question of working differently at a molecular level. In the thin film that actually ends up on the page, the inks are translucent - think Jello, not paint. Each ink absorbs the light at some frequencise and passes others, which then bounce of the white paper behind - unsess abosrbewd by another ink at the same point. It is not perfect, and in bulk the inks look opaque. But the inks are actually printed over each other.
/. a coupel of weeks ago).
You are right that, if the dots are really small, the eye will average them out. This is, actually, how screen printing works: there are actually rows of dots in shaded areas. However, they are of the order of 30 times smaller than pixels on even the best screen, so it takes quite a powerfule glass to see them.
What the article doesn't say, but the picture does, is that Cyan+Magenta+Yellow, which should theoretically produce black, actually produces a durty purplish brown. So you need some real black to get a good rendition. Each pixel will have to have four cells.
Grandparent is correct. Because the cells are spatially separate, 100% red will actually only have 25% of the the background red, the rest remaining white. So I would expect a colour display, while having good readability, to be rather flat an uninteresting. The B/W display should be very good. Because it is reflective not emissive technology, it should have excellent readabilty and low poer consumption (but not the zero power consumption of the e-Ink in
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Your point almost makes sense, until you consider the fact that all people are in fact suffering from more stress and enduring more psychological problems than previous generations.
You can blame better diagnosis (or misdiagnosis) if you want, but really I'm not sure the typical human is really meant to be as smart as society now days expects it to be. A natural human living off of the land really needs to know nothing more than how to make a spear, run from big beasts, and keep out of the rain.
Technology (be it tending crops or inventing holodecks for wild endless regret-free sexual encounters), builds on technology. Each generation has tools and knowledge that previous generations didn't have. At what point will it reach a level where few people can cope? Even now days most poeple haven't got a clue what's going on inside a computer. Most people haven't got any idea how a telephone, automobile, or television works.
How many times have you heard someone say "I don't need that many features on my TV/VCR/Microwave/etc"?
Some people evolve with the times, others just learn to cope, but more and more I think we're going to see people who simply can't hack it all. As more and more people become unable to deal with it, I can honestly see us finding a name for whatever disorder they supposedly have, fiding some medication for it, and then sending them on along their way.
We'll think they're slow, or stupid, or have no common sense, but in reality, these people could probably make a spear and hide in a cave as well (maybe even better) than the other overly cereberal upright hairless apes.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Print one of these and you'll have all the magic animated paper you need without electronics or drugs!
If annoying animation gets out of hand, a few seconds in a microwave oven will probably fix the problem. ;-)
--
Simon