Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Digital Art For Your Wall-Mounted TV

Posted by simoniker on from the simpsons-also-work-of-art dept.

Makarand writes "According to the San Francisco Chronicle, if you own a plasma or LCD TV hanging on your wall, you could display high-definition video reproductions of famous paintings on your TV screen after watching your favorite sitcoms. Companies have begun selling devices that can display the work of world-famous artists and photographers on your TV screens. The art is stored on removable flash memory cards (sold separately) and is displayed onto high-definition TVs by electronics that cost around $500."

14 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. Probably not practical due to power consumption by mozumder · · Score: 4, Informative

    Plasma can draw up to 600 watts power.

    Backlit LCDs or OLEDs would have to be the way to go.

  2. Didn't Bill G. do this ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 3, Informative
    in his super-duper wired house of the future years and years ago?

    That's so ...90's man.

    1. Re:Didn't Bill G. do this ... by extra88 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, and around the same time he was buying up the digital rights to huge amounts of fine and commerical art. I thought Corbis was owned by Microsoft but apparently it's something he did on the side. I think it started by buying up an existing image supply company or two. Yahoo! Finance link

      "Founded by Bill Gates in 1989, Corbis is headquartered in Seattle, with offices in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, London, Paris, Dusseldorf, Vienna, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, and Tokyo."

  3. sony by ignipotentis · · Score: 3, Informative

    I hear sony's come with the memory stick reader built in for digital picture viewing.

    $500 for displaying pictures seems like kind of a waste.

    --
    Don't waste time... procrastinate now!
  4. One little problem by dicepackage · · Score: 2, Informative

    If a picture is displayed for too long on some of these Tvs then the picture becomes permanently engraved into the screen.

  5. Plasma by SquiggsLDS · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've seen plasma burn-in (see "reason screen savers were invented:") on a $15k plasma TV. I'm not so sure that putting a static image on a plasma screen is anything short of lunacy.

    1. Re:Plasma by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      and this is another reason to be pissed off at the "network bug" in the corner of every damned channel.

      we have a mish-mashed shadow burnin at the Left hand lower corner on the display behind the receptionist because of the stupid networks thinking that viewers need to be reminded what channel they are watching.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  6. Already on the market by jridley · · Score: 2, Informative

    Several companies already have these:
    http://www.delkin.com/news/press/Picturevi sion.htm
    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/sand is k_dpv.html
    etc.

    These don't have HDTV outputs, but that shouldn't run the price from $80 to $500.

  7. Re:Expensive much? by Pieroxy · · Score: 1, Informative

    Actually, you didn't look very far. All of them do, you just have to burn a CD/DVD at the right format. Very few people know that you can store stills up to 720x480 on a VCD. You can have virtually several thousand full resolution pictures on a single CD! Not all DVD players will play VCDs though (even if most does) but you can do the same thing with a DVD. It'll cost you $100 to get a DVD burner, and then you're all set.

    --
    Write boring code, not shiny code!
  8. Waste of Energy by UnderAttack · · Score: 3, Informative
    A plasma screen is not an LCD monitor. It takes MUCH more power to run then a TV. Some plasmas can take up to 1000 W !!! Thats about as much as a vacuum cleaner and 5-10 times more than a TV.

    Plasma screens have to be much brighter then LCD monitors. While LCD monitors use less power then a conventional TV (or monitor), large format Plasmas chew up way more electrons.

    --
    ---- join dshield.org Distributed Intrusion Detec
    1. Re:Waste of Energy by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 3, Informative

      Let's also not forget the heat output of these suckers. Plasma is plasma if folks didn't already realize it. I was looking at a 50" EDTV the other day and it had 4 75mm fans turning at ~3500RPM. I imagine that it releases about as much heat into a room as a vacuum cleaner, too. (The 1000w has to dissipate somehow)

      Another issue is plasma's aging effect. Though it's hardly mentioned in HDTV forums and reviews, I've noticed a serious loss of brightness in ones used as display units and others used as signs. I suspect, after a good while, the things just burn out.

      I'm sure the average videophile that owns a full HDTV resolution one (720p or greater) probably does not leave them sitting around displaying an image all day. Just doesn't seem prudent.

      LCD, on the other hand, I know little about the aging process. I've had laptop displays get dimmer and look worse over time, but I think that was due to all the bending and daily beatings I gave them.

      I'd suggest LCoS or DLP if you are going with static images. Much, much lower power requirements; something in the range of 120-180w and the displays don't age in a manner you can detect visually. Still seems like a waste of power.

      Perhaps a trip down to the next local art festival and purchasing a couple of hundred dollars worth of real artwork would be a better idea? I mean, really, what's original about having the Mona Lisa or Last Supper in your pad when you can have some truely original work for very little money?

      Ok, fine. You are too cheap to get an original. I've got another plan for you. Dig around on the web for ultra-high resolution PSD, PNG, and the like, then print them out on a photo printer. Slap it in a frame and you've got the same thing and get to save money on your power bill.

  9. Don't get a flatscreen, get a projector! by Adam+Wiggins · · Score: 4, Informative

    Seriously. I was looking at $3000 - $5000 flat TVs in the 40" range. I ended up going with a projector based on a friends recommendation, and now I will never go back to lame-o screen-based displays. $1000 for http://www.projectorpeople.com/hometheater/projdtl s.asp?itemid=1144&itmname=InFocus+X1low end projector and now I've got a home theater to die for. Screw plasma - I've now got a 120" TV which disappears when not in use! Plus it's smaller (about the size of a thick hardcover book) and lighter (~6 lbs).

    Mount it on the ceiling and the thing takes up literraly no space in your living room (well, you do have to leave one wall blank of decorations). The picture is gorgeous and can be used for TV, DVDs, and video game consoles. Heck, it's got a VGA port too, I could bring out a laptop and plug it in to watch xmms visualization plugins.

    The only downsides are that it has no sound built in (that's okay, I prefer running it through my stereo better), and doing the ceiling mount was a bit more effort than just plunking down a TV or hanging a flatscreen on the wall.

    I highly recommend a projector - not this specific model, pretty much any one will do (though DLP seems like a better choice for watching TV than an LCD based projector, which most of the expensive ones are).

    1. Re:Don't get a flatscreen, get a projector! by Adam+Wiggins · · Score: 2, Informative

      Crap, screwed up that URL. Here's the correct one:

      InFocus X1

  10. Re:Did they solve that yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    FYI, I know this technology works and is valid. It currently exists in approximately 75-90% of all "high quality" display units - be they LCD, Plasma, etc.
    A majority of the time, you'll never know they actually use this technology unless you actually go out and search for it. Why? Well, although almost noone will notice a 1/72" or less movement, because you tell people the picture moves they start believing that it actually does move. And want a refund.
    Technologies such as Pixel Shift are combined with other methods to reduce and almost eliminate burn in. Signal Pattern Process for example, actually measures the intensity and brightness of all the pixels and adjusts accordingly.
    In your example, of 10x10 white pixels, Signal Pattern Process actually varies the degree of white in that block by alternating pixels. It happens in a fraction of a second and is not noticeable by the human eye. But it does prevent burnin, which is caused by pixels having the exact intensity, color, refresh, etc. Change one of those variables, and it reduces burn in. Change 2 or more and it virtually eliminates it.
    As for me posting as AC, well I have to. Try to find out more information on these technologies - it's quite tough to learn exactly how it works. I happen to know, as I've worked with anti burn in technologies for almost 10 years now, and it may mean my job if management felt I was divulging more then I should.
    In short, it does work. I've given you examples of exactly how. It's up to you whether you believe me or not, I don't really care. But to have someone blanket about burn in, et al, without the feintest bit of knowledge about what they are talking about is simply irresponsible.