A Video Projector That Fits In Your Pocket

Sven-Erik writes "Video projectors able to project high-quality images will be embedded in your cellphones and laptops within two years. This is the promise of a new technology developed at Cambridge University. These pocket projectors will have no lenses and no light bulbs. Instead, these future battery-powered tiny projectors will rely on holographic technology and special algorithms. In 'Holograms enable pocket projectors,' Technology Research News explains that a 2D hologram will be created on a microdisplay and projected by using a laser beam. This has been possible because the researchers have written special algorithms which generates the holograms a million times faster than standard ones." Update: 07/03 21:21 GMT by T : Note that this text belongs to Roland Piquepaille and comes from his weblog; submitters, please strive to make your sources clear.

Comments

Is that a video projector in your pocket

[Anonymous Coward]

Or are you just happy to see me?

Re:Is that a video projector in your pocket

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that a pack of Roland Piquepailles in your pocket, or are you just depressed to see it?

Re:Is that a video projector in your pocket

[tommyboyprime]

Since I don't believe Sci-Fi writers are prescient, I think this is another example of scientists thinking that something they saw or read about would be a cool thing to have, so let's invent one.

Oblig Star Wars Ref

[anaphora]

Yes, but when will we be able to put them in robots?

"Help me Obi Wan Kenobi, You're my only hope."

Re:Oblig Star Wars Ref

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I know, true holographic projection "Obi Wan Kenobi" style is not possible with any presently known techniques.

Anyone care to prove me wrong?

Re:Oblig Star Wars Ref

[Tlosk]

You know the funny thing is I remember thinking to myself the first time I saw that why the holographic video was grainy, it seemed preposterous to me that they could have that sort of technology on R2D2 and yet have it be all grainy in appearance.

And now it seems incredibly prescient lol, given the millionfold increase in processing speed using the noise variance method described in the article, the trade off between graininess and speed actually becomes quite rational.

Re:Oblig Star Wars Ref

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I guess even a complete moron like George Lucas can appear intelligent on occasion.

Of course, even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'll chalk this shit up to coincidence.

Re:Oblig Star Wars Ref

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean about this? Or just in general?

Re:Oblig Star Wars Ref

[Anonymous Coward]

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every so often.

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

On a side note, inexpensive home projection theaters kick ass. Cost is about $400 for everything besides the projector. I don't know why anyone with a week of time would buy a plasma TV.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

"will be embedded in your cellphones and laptops within two years."

at what cost? sounds expensive

Re:Hmm

[The Only Druid]

There are several reasons:

1: Plasmas look perfect in bright light, allowing you to use them without blanketing the room in darkness.
2: Plasmas are rated to last around a decade, give or take. Bulbs in projectors need to be replaced (after a comprarable amount of use) in about 1-2 years.
3: Plasmas are almost without exception higher resolution and clarity than projectors.
4: Plasmas are almost without exception better at displaying pure black and pure white, and thus at displaying all colors in between, than projectors.
5: Plasms dont require an unobstructed path between the projector at the screen, i.e. they're easier to position in a potentially crowded room.

There are more, but I'll leave it at that.

Re:Hmm

[HeelToe]

Yes, there are clearly tradeoffs. I took the projector approach and I couldn't be happier. Not quite movie-theater angular size, but closer than anything short of a movie theater. For 1/3 the price of a plasma 3/4 the size of the screen.

It will be interesting to see how the new prototype Sony technology (the black screen thing) works out. It would be amazing to have a high quality projected image without needing great control of the ambient light.

There are also people doing reverse projection setups using front projectors. These also reduce the need for ambient light control.

Re:Hmm

[ftzdomino]

Plasma tvs don't require $400-$1000 bulbs for every thousand hours of viewing.

Re:Hmm

[Hawke666]

Umm, neither do projectors. Most of them last much more than 1000 hours. 2000-3000 is much more typical.
Bulb cost is around $460 on average (Only checked out Infocus). Only the high-end projector lamps are on the range you're speaking of, and a low-end projector is plenty adequate for home use.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Projectors are now available that project upwards, and can be placed around 18 inches from the projection surface.

For a premium projectors with a brightness of 4000 lumens are available.

Screen and projection technology is improving allowing much truer blacks, and higher resolution (much, much higher than standard DVD resolution)

In addition other wall mounted TV technology involving projection into the wide end of a thin slab of transparent material, and improved LCD/TFT technology are coming.

I strongly suspect that the days of the plasma TV are limited. In fact I suspect CRT will outlive plasma for consumer use as CRTs can be made very cheaply. At the higher cost end there are many plasma-killing technologies around the corner.

Re:Hmm

[nmk]

Plasmas are in now way better than Projectors for the purpose of video. If you are talking about crappy LCD projectors, perhaps. But there is no comparision between the quality of a good CRT projector and any Plasma display. CRT's are still held by videophiles to be peerless in the projection of motion picture. They have superb black level contrast, something that is missing is almost all digital projectors and televisions (including single chip DLP's). They have rich saturated colors in both bright and dark scenes.

If you spend enough money on a CRT projector and a high end line interpolater, you can get HD resolution without any of the artifacts associated with low end line multipliers. Even a $10,000 CRT projector with a built in line doubler will put any Plasma to shame.

I have always viewed plasmas as silly toys for people who either don't know much about the shoices availible, or just want one becuase it looks cool. If you really want to spend plasma screen sorts of money, you are better off spending it on a CRT projector.

Of course, CRT's do have several disadvantages. They aren't very bright, so cant be used effectively with high levels of of environmental lighting (ideally there should be none). They are big and bulky, and a pain in the ass to physically install. They are not plug and play. The tubes, as well as various other things, have to be calibrated on installation. In all likelihood the supplier would be the one doing this for you. However, Even if you feel that a CRT projector is not for you, you are better off going for a good CRT TV than a plasma screen.

Re:Hmm

[Lavaeolus]

For anybody that missed it, the Sony "black screen thing" was discussed here.

Sigh - now I've got to clean the drool off my keyboard again...

Re:Hmm

[dave420]

I'll see those and raise you these:

1. 160" plasmas are rather more expensive than a projector (which can give you that size, easily)
2. You can't pick a plasma screen up in one hand and move it out on the veranda to watch movies outside
3. Cheap plasma screens have horrific quality, as the built-in processing is limited
4. Projectors cost 1/4 of the price of a plasma 5. Replacement bulbs for projectors cost about $100
6. Sony's new projector screens mean perfect viewing in light environments

I know where you're coming from, but if you have a screen in your lounge as big as your wall, you simply don't care. I got a projector last year, and I've not looked back (and I'm a stickler for image quality, etc.).

Re:Hmm

[AaronLawrence]

Higher resolution and clarity? Where do you get that from? A typicaly widescreen home theater projector such as Panasonic AE-500 is 1024x576. Plasmas are typically that or lower.

Projectors are just as clear if not clearer. In fact they are sometimes TOO clear, ie. the square pixels become visible. So recent projectors soften it slightly to get back to a more natural looking projectors.

But, all this is irrelevant for me. Projectors generally give 2-5x as large a screen at 1/2 to 1/4 the cost. That's a no brainer to me.

Re:Hmm

[way2trivial]

plasmas rated to last ten years?
brightness cuts in half in 2-3 years.

Re:Hmm

[Netssansfrontieres]

Plasmas: problems include lousy lifetimes (two or three years before serious image degradation, intensity down by 3dB), high power consumption, image-burn-in, pixel-flicker ... and v. high prices -- which will not decline much. Also: plasmas are not even sold in some areas (e.g. states such as Colorado, I'm told, because the elevation means low atmospheric pressure ... and so the individual cells can "pop".)

Projectors: problems include v. poor color/hue fidelity (multiple reasons, including a white/dark illumination cycle, not just RGB, as a way of increasing brightness); fan noise. All front projectors have image visibility problems ... the SNR is quite low, unless the room is darkened.

Watch for Apple

[fastdecade]

Apple will make this a standard component first, in the same way as they picked up on other trends and mainstreamed them, e.g. window-based UI, 17" screen, PDA.

Re:Watch for Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm, food :)

Re:Watch for Apple

[euxneks]

Apple will make this a standard component first, in the same way as they picked up on other trends and mainstreamed them, e.g. window-based UI, 17" screen, PDA.

Kinda strange though, that when I think of those three items I don't think of Apple....

Re:Watch for Apple

[Ironclad2]

Didn't the PDA become a market-standard device some after Apple *dropped* the Newton?

Re:Watch for Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is not "mainstream" .. the only thing they "mainstreamed" was the iPod.

Re:Watch for Apple

[fastdecade]

Yeah, they certainly made a mes of the Newton. I'm not saying they succeeded in everything they kicked off, I'm just saying they put their butts on the line and go all-out with upcoming technologies.

In the case of Newton, they made it big news. There were PDAs before, mostly industrial, but Apple were making a big fanfare about being the first mainstream PDA.

As it happened, all the publicity backfired big time.

Re:Watch for Apple

[fastdecade]

Apple's not exactly mainstream, but it pushes technologies into the manistream. If I had a dollar for every "candy coloured" gadget that came out in the late nineties ...

Re:Watch for Apple

[Rude Turnip]

1. Window-based UI: popularized by Apple, invented by Xerox
2. 17" screen: Probably referring to the Powerbook being the first 17" notebook.
3. PDA: Newton.

Re:Watch for Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet England, Apple drops on Newton!

Re:Watch for Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

...you'd buy enough bullets to shoot each product designer that thought it was a good idea?

Re:Watch for Apple

[dnahelix]

Yes, some of it was over the top, i.e. multicolored George Foreman grills. However, I loved my lime green iMac, and still use it for music in the workout room. It is a very playful design and works well in there. It also beat the fuck out of the beige tower drab nightmare that preceded it. If it wasn't such great design, it would not have been imitated so broadly. The sleek black G3 powerbook was perfect in the corporate setting I used it in. I think the G4 Cube was way ahead of it's time, and we'll be seeing devices like it again. After having a G4 cube, I never thought I'd own a computer as LARGE as the G5 I have now, but I love it's minimal industrial form and like to run my hands over the cool elemental surface, and being functional as well, the whole thing is one big heat sink.

Re:Watch for Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

If it wasn't such great design, it would not have been imitated so broadly.

Really?

Re:Watch for Apple

[Klanglor]

well you have to take into account the CEO of the time. since job took back the position of CEO after being kicked out, Apple rebecame mainstream.

ie. iXYZ except the iSeries :P
ipod,imac,ipod.... ...iProject

Re:Watch for Apple

[dnahelix]

I believe around 6 million original iMacs were sold.
What do they say? "The proof is in the pudding."
I love pudding. Do you?
Naah, you probably hate it,
prefering to eat dry, old, stale bread.
Blech!!!


Oh, btw, you should check your Wikipedia again, since it's an ever changing document. You should probably copy and paste from it instead of just putting up a link, since you never know what it might say next. Then again, you could always write something for yourself.

won't the small size also affect image quality?

[adzoox]

My question is:

If the size of the lens makes a difference in CCDs in camcorders (moreso than digital cameras) - won't the small size also affect image quality from these devices?

Also, will these devices be ANOTHER cost INCREASE? - because projectors (affordable units) are JUST now appearing on the market.

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality?

[the_2nd_coming]

I guess you messed the HIGH QUALITY part of it.

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, there's high quality camcorders that suck at image quality - the nicest cam on the market performs the worst in dark lit rooms

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality?

[sploo22]

To the best of my knowledge, the loss of image quality with standard optical equipment occurs due to imperfections in the lens. With this method, there seems to be no actual refraction taking place - it all operates on wave interference. And I quote:

"No lenses are required -- the projected image is formed entirely by diffraction," said Cable.

Believe it or not, the cost is not likely to be that much higher, because there's no need for precision optics, just a tiny screen and a laser.

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality?

[arieswind]

dark lit rooms? isnt that contradictory? O_o

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality?

[RickHunter]

Actually, the cost is likely to be quite a lot lower than anything involving optics. Making lenses is hard work. Making lasers is easy. And from what they say in the article, I gather that the hardware for the image production bit is pretty easy to make too. What's complicated are the algorithms they use in the background.

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality?

[MeatNoodle]

Read the article. The thing doesn't use a lens. It works by direct refraction of a laser through a hologram.

However, I'll be interested in the quality anyway... The article goes on to say that coming up with the hologram in real-time is accomplished by minimizing noise variance, and not noise. My guess though is that initial units will be "good enough". After that, incremental improvement of the technology should bring the quality up to HDTV levels.

P.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality?

[Freudiandave]

The fact that it's easier to use won't make it cheaper. There's a novelty to it that will allow them to price it higher if they want. Just look at DVDs, which should be cheaper to produce VHS, for an example.

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality?

[Anonymous Coward]

No way! C'mon, they're using Fricken Lasers!

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Making a raster image using lasers isn't eactly easy. In the past, it required a mirror that swivels on two axis (axes?), quickly and accurately.

I suspect there is a reason that it has taken this long. I've heard about the possibility a few years ago, but not this method.

Now the only question is whether the laser colors conform to existing video standards or if they will look a little off, because how good it will look will depend on a reasonable level of color accuracy on the primaries.

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality?

[adzoox]

Actually in the aricle it's very confusing:

"Key to the device's diminutive size is the lack of lenses and high-power light bulbs. Conventional digital video projectors form images by generating a small picture on a transparent microdisplay inside the projector, then shining a high-power light through the microdisplay to a large magnifying lens.

In the researchers' design, a two-dimensional hologram is shown on the microdisplay rather than an image, and the projected image is formed by shining a laser beam through the microdisplay, which scatters the light into a particular pattern. "No lenses are required -- the projected image is formed entirely by diffraction"

To me that seems to be the same thing. The diffraction has to be achieved by glass or a prism of some type! Right?

Also, there ARE STILL microdiplays being used. Right now, these displays are STILL plagued with resolution problems and currently on glass - maybe soon on OLED - and wouldn't a laser cause such displays to fade or burn in?

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality?

[drinkypoo]

I don't know why a hologram is necessary for this, but if you shine light through a diffraction grating, and that light is coherent, you ought to be able to get an excellent idea of where it will end up. It sounds like they're going to be using the known qualities of gratings with several possible states to project their images. More power to them, even if I don't really understand it either. Projectors are the future! Well, and the present.

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality?

[Too Much Noise]

No raster is involved in holography - you get the whole image at once. Of course, with generating the holo pattern that produces the interference you need to generate the 'pixels', but that won't involve the laser. As to colors, it's not that hard - tune the laser and the hologram to the right frequency.

Thet said the big problem was generating the holo pattern quick enough - and this is where they say they outsmarted the previous methods. The rest of the problems are probably technical. Let's hope they will have low-cost solutions, too.

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality?

[Saeger]

Making a raster image using lasers isn't eactly easy. In the past, it required a mirror that swivels on two axis (axes?), quickly and accurately.

That's what Microvision does with their retinal scanners for augmented vision. Uses little MEMS mirrors.

--

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality?

[Tlosk]

Only to pedantic cornholes, are you one?

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality?

[RickHunter]

Well, they mention in the article that they're not even trying to get colours with a single projector. Instead, they're investiating using two in parallel for that. I'm not quite sure how two would work though - would it try to use interference to create colour or what? Wouldn't you need three projectors for colour schemes?

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality?

[Too Much Noise]

I would think they used 'in parallel' rather loosely. Depending on what tech they use for the holograms, it could be doable to have the outgoing beam angled from the incoming one (really easy if the holo is a volume one); then they can use, say 3 holos for RGB that would scatter light from 3 (R, G, B) lasers in the same direction to superimpose the images and get the color one.

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality?

[pVoid]

The quick answer is no.

The reason is that Holograms *use* diffraction as a means of creating the image. Diffraction is the phenomenon where if a light wave passes through a hole that is approximately the size of its wave length, it gets 'garbled' - or diffracted into unrecognizalbe patterns.

That's why you have a practical limit to the miniaturisation of lenses.

But aside from that, you have optical artifacts that occur even with normal SLR lenses. And that is because lenses are not perfectly 'stygmatic'. Which means, lenses don't actually do what they're supposed to, they only do it to a certain degree at which the eye can't differentiate.

If lenses were stygmatic, then the concept of 'depth of field' would not exist: everything in the picture would always be in focus.

Think of it this way, the rules playing on lenses and holograms are as different as the rules effective on analog vs digital. It might be the same medium, but it's an entirely different ballgame.

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality?

[RickHunter]

That's what I was thinking too, but I could've sworn that it sounded like they were talking about getting full-colour with just two projectors. I don't know enough about the physics involved to even guess if that's possible.

Re:won't the small size also affect image quality?

[Idarubicin]

If lenses were stygmatic, then the concept of 'depth of field' would not exist: everything in the picture would always be in focus.

Minor nitpick. Stigmatic--or more commonly anastigmatic--lenses don't have an infinite depth of field. Rather, an ideal anastigmatic lens properly focuses light all the way across the focal plane. Astigmatic lenses (lenses with astigmatism) will produce images that are blurry as you move further from the primary axis of the lens. That is, even if you focus your camera correctly, stuff near the edges won't be as sharp as stuff in the middle of the frame. In practice, most camera lenses try to minimize astigmatism through the use of multiple lens elements and other tricks; some are better at it than others.

Depth of field considerations will still exist--even though the entire focal plane of an anastigmatic lens should be sharp, stuff in front or behind will be out of focus. If you want more depth of field, you have to stop down your aperture. If you want large depth of field and no astigmatism, get a camera obscura ('pinhole camera').

New killer teleconference app?

[VinceWuzHere]

What an addition this would be to remote meetings, instructing, etc. Just set your cellphone on the table and have a live demo in front of your eyes. Of course someone will likely use it for pr0n before any other "real" uses...

Re:New killer teleconference app?

[Sven-Erik]

Well, getting the pr0n industry to start using a new technology is a sure thing to get it to take of! ;-) Just think of Super-8, vcr's, Internet, DVD's...

Re:New killer teleconference app?

[ryen]

i believe the pr0n industry is most notably known for advancing the streaming media industry.

Re:New killer teleconference app?

[Sven-Erik]

True, but they did the same thing to Super8 film and VCR's. But maybe that was before your time...

Re:New killer teleconference app?

[ThatsNotFunny]

I object to your use of quotes when talking about "real" uses. pr0n is a real use!

(The above message is from ThatsNotFunny's left hand)

Better punchline?

[Anonymous Coward]

In that a video projector in your pocket, or just Ed Wood? Get it? I said wood.

sign of the times

[justforaday]

The Pocket Projector - the sign of a true dork.

Pr0n?

[MisanthropicProgram]

Ooo yes! Project it on the bathroom stall door and ....

Re:Pr0n?

[Zorilla]

Ooo yes! Project it on the bathroom stall door and ....

Damn. I was hoping bathroom teleconferencing would predate portable holograms...although President Scroob probably thinks differently about that.

Take it anywhere

[Zorilla]

Great. This only increases the potential of being able to have PowerPoint presentations shoved down your throat, now anytime, anywhere.

PHBs beware, do not approve a purchase of one of these projectors for use by Debbie from Sales.

Re:Take it anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

What if Debbie did Dallas instead of Sales?

Well..

[arieswind]

I dont see how putting projectors in phones will make them any more useful than they are, they will only make it more expensive.

The Laptop projectors on the other hand, if they are built in, would eliminate the need for bulky projectors when a worker needs to give a presentation to his boss or co workers.. they could even make mini tv's use this technology, and project onto any free space of wall.

Re:Well..

[TerminalInsanity]

with some of the cellphones out these days... add a projector and you have a full-screen portable gaming platform

Re:Well..

[aero6dof]

Go one step further and you might have a laptop with flip up lid that consists of little more that a reflective surface to shine the projector onto, flip the lid out of the way and have a presentation projector.

Re:Well..

[drinkypoo]

Just one or two generations of cellphones from now, you'll be using your camera and projector-equipped cellphone and you'll remember this comment and slap yourself repeatedly.

Re:Well..

[arieswind]

my cell phone does what it was meant to do, make phone calls, it has none of those addons, like games, cameras, text messaging, etc

Re:Well..

[drinkypoo]

Sooner or later they're all going to have those things. When image processing is so cheap that you can put a camera in a mouse to photograph the desktop and compute movement from a sequence of snapshots, it's kind of a foregone conclusion that everything that can have a camera in it soon will, and basically everything can have a camera in it.

Once upon a time we were all waiting for all cameras to have dot matrix screens which greatly improves interfaces. Now the things are in color and have games and web browsers. Sooner or later we're going to be shooting home movies and watching streamed video from our cellular phones.

Re:Well..

[Saeger]

Sooner or later we're going to be shooting home movies and watching streamed video from our cellular phones.

Without the right (read: big) camera lenses, they'll all be shitty movies too.

My new RedRider BB gun is going to have a compass in one side of the stock, a digital clockradio on the other, a camera on the site, and 802.11x and GPS. yeehaw.

--

Re:Well..

[Igmuth]

*obligitory joke*

"You'll shoot your eye out!"

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

It can be full-screen on a small screen, even without the projector though :P

queue the same jokes

[Saeger]

1. "Help me Obi Wan Kenobi!"
2. "And you thought the punkass kids in the movie theatre with laser pointers were bad!"
3. "Goatse.cx! Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!"

--

Re:queue the same jokes

[Anonymous Coward]

oh man. laser pointers ruined Spiderman2 for me. there were two of those assholes in the audience and evertime a woman was on screen they would shine it on her nipples or ass. If I knew where those fuckers were sitting.......... and I had a gun........ I would continue to sit quietly and do nothing.............. but i would be sure to give them a mean dirty look!!!!!!

Re:queue the same jokes

[The Only Druid]

As much as you're being ironic, you've actually hit on a real point here.

There are already a few cases involving people displaying porn on the headrest displays in their car (I dont have a link handy, but I could swear I saw one or more mentioned here at /.).

How long after these are developed do you think it will be before someone is arrested for seruptitiously displaying pornography in public? What about if you flash it quickly so only oner person sees it, and stop before they realize who caused it? I'm dreading the moment where I'm walking in the street and suddenly Goatse.cx pops up on the ground in front of me =P...

Re:queue the same jokes

[quantum bit]

So they'll use fancy nightvision goggles to nab some kid with a camcorder who isn't bothering anyone, yet do nothing to stop morons with laser pointers from ruining the show.

I think it's pretty clear what the movie theater owners think about their customers.

Re:queue the same jokes

[Saeger]

IMO, nothing much can be done in the very near-term about the increasing level of eye and ear pollution out there, especially the paid-for commercial pollution - people will just get used to it.

A little farther down the road, though, we could be living in a Vingean world where there's raw reality, and then there's the filtered augmented consensus reality. Your visual preprocessor would be able to recognize and remove the goatse.cx pattern before sending it down your optic nerve...

--

Re:queue the same jokes

[ratsnapple tea]

What makes you think they wouldn't nab kids with laser pointers, too, if they caught them in the act? Oh, that's right--you just wanted to take a cheap shot at the MPAA. Don't be such a tool.

Re:queue the same jokes

[Anonymous Coward]

4. ???
5. PROFIT!!!

holograms in phones?

[Anonymous Coward]

you know the first application of this will be "Help my Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope" ringtones...

Re:holograms in phones?

[Lurks]

You reckon they kids with brand new mobile phones actually know about the furst Star Wars movies? They've got Jar Jar Binks ring tones fer Christ's sakes. *

* I use that to make the point, I'm not entirely sure how you would make a Jar Jar Binks ring tone but it's too horrible to contemplate anyway;

Sounds expensive.

[jZnat]

Aren't normal projectors already as expensive as decent LCD monitors? This sounds too rich for my blood, or my children's blood, or my grandchildren's blood, ...

Re:Sounds expensive.

[AKAImBatman]

Projectors have high powered bulbs, precision optics, and a bunch of other very expensive components. This method works by scanning an individual laser and reflecting it to a surface. Thus the price shouldn't be too much higher than that of a stock laser pointer.

Re:Sounds expensive.

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds great if you want a blurry black and red picture! You'll still need good optics to focus the laser, and good luck on those green and blue semiconductor lasers to work at room temperature for more than 5 minutes!

Cell phones in theaters

[vspazv]

And i thought cell phones in the movie theater were bad enough already...

Thank Buddha for technology...

[Crudely_Indecent]

That the projected image is 2D is disappointing, but the fact that it doesn't require lenses or high power bulbs is an incredible feet.

Imagine trying to use a PDA with built in projector using todays bulb technology, not only would the PDA be the size of a large book but it would cook your hand too. Don't set it down too hard or you'll break the filament in the bulb.

The difference in power consumption between the laser and bulb is probably pretty similar. While the bulb only needs the power to glow and display output on the LCD, the laser projector requires not only the power required to light the laser, but the power to run the imaging LCD and the power to run the image processor (2GHz Athlon)

Re:Thank Buddha for technology...

[ColonelPanic]

... is an incredible feet

What, it's got extra toes or something?

Re:Thank Buddha for technology...

[Anonymous Coward]

but the fact that it doesn't require lenses or high power bulbs is an incredible feet.

that would be "an incredible foot" or just incredible feet"

unless you really meant "feat" in which case Buddha's feet have nothing to do with it.

Re:Thank Buddha for technology...

[Klanglor]

hmmm... roasted hands.. miam. --had to say it.

ok rate me troll, maintaining high karma takes too much fun out of you life.

Re:Thank Buddha for technology...

[Crudely_Indecent]

yeah yeah....my fingers sometimes get ahead of my brane.....er...brian.....er.....brain, yeah that's it.

Re:Thank Buddha for technology...

[desmogod]

2D Is disappointing, I must admit, I want at least 4D... anything less is just not a credible hand, err feet, errr, feat. eejit

They should be patented

[Anonymous Coward]

...These novel algorithms will be patented....

Of course, and they should be. 'Novel' applications like this one are completely non-obvious. That's what patents are for. All I'm saying is that I don't think anything is wrong with this company getting patents for it's work.

Re:They should be patented

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a publically funded university getting patents for its work?

Students

[mboverload]

This will be great for students and teachers. In my school teachers are always fussing over the projectors and when they get to use them. Because of this, many have given up on using them. With these new pocket proijectors teachers can take them home and use them where ever and when ever.

I welcome our new pocket-sized projector overloards.

What's the light source?

[Animats]

What makes this so great? They still have to have a light source and enough power to drive it.

The actual imaging component of a projector isn't that big. Look at the TI DLP chip. Their projectors are already down to 2.2 pounds.

Color is a problem. Currently, you need either a color wheel for field-sequential color or three imaging chips, which looks better. This new "holographic" display has the same problem. Note that their demo image is greyscale.

What's really needed are powerful LED arrays as the light source. If you could change the light source color at a few KHz, which LEDs can easily do, a one-chip DLP projector without a color wheel would work. With an LED light source, you could do some other obvious power-saving tricks, too. You need no more light output than the brightest pixel in that color in that frame. With sectional lighting, maybe less.

LEDs with enough light output for this are not far off. LEDs have taken over automotive taillights, and white LED automotive headlamps are expected in 2006. Toyota showed a car with LED headlamps in 2003.

That direction is more likely to result in smaller projectors than this "holographic" thing.

Re:What's the light source?

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes this so great? ...

Low power consumption and size ?

Re:What's the light source?

[sploo22]

This is so revolutionary because it has no optics. No lens, no mirrors, nothing. Plus because it uses a laser instead of a bulb, it will use less power, last longer and won't need a big fan to cool it.

Re:What's the light source?

[Viadd]

For holography you want monochrome light, which means the light source will be lasers. Probably three diode lasers for R,G,B. Lasers are much more efficient than the incandescent bulbs used in projectors, which means that you will be able to put your PDA back in your pocket without second degree burns after using for a while.

The home page of one of the coauthors of the cited paper is here. It shows a hologram that takes a few seconds to generate on a 2 GHz PC. Pretty low quality, and presumably specialized hardware (which could probably be implemented as an FPGA) will be required to get it to video rates. But for static text type presentations, for the Powerpoint warriors who are the main market for projectors, speed is less important.

Re:What's the light source?

[ifwm]

"That direction is more likely to result in smaller projectors than this "holographic" thing."

Well, considering they already have a proof of concept, and what you're proposing doesn't exist yet, I say you are dead wrong.

Re:What's the light source?

[TheSpoom]

Hmmm...

*replaces LCD headlight in car with holographic projector projecting image of oncoming truck to the car ahead*

Re:What's the light source?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Uh, from the article, it looks like the light source is a frick'n laser, and it doesn't require a frick'n shark's head.

I hate one chip DLPs. The rainbowing is ass until you get the 6x or better color wheels. The MMD chips are pretty small, but probably still too big for "pocket" projectors.

Re:What's the light source?

[jeff munkyfaces]

"Their projectors are already down to 2.2 pounds."

mmm lightweight..

Re:What's the light source?

[Animats]

LED projector prototypes for HDTV have been publicly demonstrated. Color, even. That's further than these "holographic" guys have gone.

This particular company made a bad partnering decision, though; their LCD panel vendor didn't get funding and tanked. (Venture capitalists refer to this as a deal with "too many moving parts").

Re:What's the light source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice work animats,
Gramatically correct ;-)
Factually correct
Please listen to this guy (he obviously knows what he is talking about)

[anonymous coward because too idle]
jclegg@gmail.com :-D

Re:What's the light source?

[Spy Hunter]

The lenses are a big problem. They are large, delicate, and expensive. This projector uses no lenses. Powerful LEDs would help too, but that technology is orthogonal to this technology. Both can help reduce projector size, weight, cost, and power usage.

Re:What's the light source?

[songbo]

Holographic images absolutely require monochromatic light. To generate the images, you will need to know the wavelength of the light source because you need that to carry out the transformations which will generate the required diffraction patterns. The monochromatic light will pass through the diffraction patterns, like what happens with holograms, and resultant image projected will be the original image.

So, my point being, since we don't know of any other good monochromatic light sources, the obvious answer for the light source is the LASER.

Great

[Anonymous Coward]

since the device is being developed at Cambridge University maybe the owners manual and instructions will be written like this:

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Re:Great

[Triskele]

Works for me - I understood what you wrote - whats your problem?

Cool, but potential for weird/annoying uses.

[stoneymonster]

I can imagine these things pointed at movie screens by bored teens. Or spot advertisements aimed at all sorts of surfaces-- building walls, bald peoples heads. How long before someone aims a multi-megawatt laser projector at the moon to sell us coke c2?

Re:Cool, but potential for weird/annoying uses.

[sploo22]

Just wait till they start projecting basilisk images! o_O

Re:Cool, but potential for weird/annoying uses.

[Saeger]

Just wait till they start projecting basilisk images! o_O

Hah. On the conspiracy scale, a special image that can shutdown the human brain is 1000 times more bullshit than, say, the Philadelphia Experiment.

--

Re:Cool, but potential for weird/annoying uses.

[quantum bit]

That link is dangerous :) Though it was written in 1999, the "future" references to dates in 2001 aren't nearly as obvious today, so someone skimming that article might miss the clues that it's fiction and think there really is such a thing.

The "Last revised 2006" date at the very bottom is a dead giveaway, as is the Mandelbrot set reference (fractals are by definition self-recursive, so the pattern will always be the same no matter what magnification is used).

But hey, there are people out there who believe crazier things...

If I may be so bold...

[iamdrscience]

I think I speak for the majority of sane-minded people when I say this:

Seriously? In cellphones? WTF?

Re:If I may be so bold...

[Temporo]

Yeh why not, everything else is going in there, put it all in one place and charge a huge amount for it, take over the market with one device. Now that sounds a little microsoft!!

And

[Spackler]

Is that a video projecter in your pocket, or are you just glad to read slashdot?

Can it be used as a computer display?

[Anonymous Writer]

The images were the same but contained different levels of noise. The researchers found that variation in noise levels affected people's perception of video quality more than the actual level of the noise.

I'm not familiar with holography, but doesn't the presence of noise mean that individual pixels won't be very clear? I suppose that would be okay for video, but what about using the projection as a computer display? Would it be good enough for text and fonts?

pr0n

[Mr. Spontaneous]

Imagine the impact this will have on the porn industry........

Re:pr0n

[HoneyBunchesOfGoats]

none?

Re:pr0n

[Anonymous Coward]

dude, it's:

"it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye. Then it's just games - hunt the eye!"

Re:pr0n

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right.
I still watch porn videos at 320x240 ,
who needs lasers,
and neither can compete with a prostitue
(or even the fleshlight)

Re:pr0n

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, done.

Now what?

Re:pr0n

[davidsyes]

Yep, now you can stand and DELIVER!

OT - names

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you just love it how we've gone back to the medeival naming scheme. Just as people used to be 'John the Miller' or 'Jesus of Nazareth' or whatever, you now have 'Debbie from Sales.'

My 2 cents.

The power

[mao che minh]

"These pocket projectors will have no lenses and no light bulbs. Instead, these future battery-powered tiny projectors will rely on the in-born, raw nerd power of the geek that wears it."

errr.. batteries?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hey guys, check out this hologram I just got! Just give me a second for me to plug my wireless phone into an electrical socket, so that my batteries don't get completely drained in 15 seconds."

Kind of defeats the purpose, huh? Already when I start using my video camera is limits my cell phone usage. Imagine the energy requirements for a hologram projector.

Let's forget about putting all this stuff in cell phones... let's concentrate on actually getting this in a real projector of some sort before we start making high-faluting promises of having everything in our freaking cell phones.

This micro projector saves laptops.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather than attach a sixteen-ounce LCD panel to a laptop, you can as-well attach an unfolding cotton-clothe dome and project the image on its surface.

Low power, lighter, and when you need to wash the "screen" you just throw it in the laundry and thereafter dry and remove the lint.

And those of us that like to browse slashdot with *ahhem* one hand on their joystick and one hand on their *uhm* mouse, you won't regreat losing controll onto your monitor.

Help us Sony, Pioneer or Fujitsu!

[ManyLostPackets]

Help us Sony, Pioneer or Fujitsu!

Focus group's of American electronic companys say no one is interested in such things!

Help us Sony, Pioneer or Fujitsu! You're our only hope!

Re:Help us Sony, Pioneer or Fujitsu!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder why nobody has made a "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi" joke yet.

Heh - good point

[mao che minh]

You ever held a flashlight out of a moving car at night, annoying people as the light cascades into their bedroom windows? That was pretty fun as a kid.

Now picture that, but only with a 24-bit high resolution image of someone's ass.

Can't access the algorithm description

[gokeln]

Primary author's homepage here http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~eb296/research.shtml The algorithm appears only to be available in the Journal of the Optical Society of America. Membership required to access.

I dont't know Sven-Erik, but he didn't wrote this

[rpiquepa]

Check this page ( http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/2004/07/03.html ) or this RSS feed ( http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/rss.xml ) to see what plagiarism is -- the exact words on my RSS feed. You also can check hours of publication. I'm not happy with this. Last month, someone opened a Slashdot account with my name. Now, "Sven-Erik" is publishing my own words, already submitted to Slashdot, and he's credited for this. Slashdot editors, please be careful! And "Sven-Erik," please indicate your sources!!!

just the next step

[cybergrunt69]

This looks like it's going to be a great new product. While I'll probably never have a cell phone with one of these built into it, I can see it as the next logical step to be included in the standard PDA and notebook. For all we know now, that little laser pointer will have one too... So I wonder what it would take to get one of these items just by itself so I can hook it up as a monitor for my computers? Will it take the place of my clunky heavy TV, too? I'm very interested to see where this is going!

Am I missing something ?

[sane?]

Maybe I'm missing something, but surely you would store the holographic image data (eg the thing that drives the 2D microdisplay), rather than attempting to convert on the fly.

Therefore what you need, past the circuitry, is a good compression algorithm for the holographic data. This is unlikely to follow the precepts of the JPEG/MPEG compression (more oppotunity for patents methinks). Together with the display technology you then have a viable system.

Interesting technology, maybe, but not a complete solution yet.

Re:Am I missing something ?

[Anonymous Coward]

you won't be able to store data if you're receiving a signal from another source (since you don't know what it is before hand). Also, I was at the SID presentation of this thing, the presenter admitted that it took about 20 minutes to create the data for one frame.

? 2-D hologram ?

[James Turpin]

What is a 2-D hologram?? I thought holograms were inherently 3-D, although they may sometimes be images of impossible objects.

Re:? 2-D hologram ?

[uberdave]

When two beams of light merge, they interact with each other and create a pattern of light and dark regions called an interference pattern. A hologram is basically just a photograph of an interference pattern. It is a two dimensional (incredibly complex) pattern of light and dark areas on the film. The magic of holograms lies in the fact that the interference pattern captured on film can act as a lens. When you shine one of the original beams of light (the reference beam) through a hologram you get a replica of the other beam of light (the object beam) coming out. If the object holographed was 2D, you get a 2D hologram, If it was 3D (as most are), you get a 3D hologram.

Where we're at now is that we can compute the interference pattern needed to project a 2D object, rather than having to photograph it, and we can compute it on the fly.

Re:? 2-D hologram ?

[James Turpin]

So if you had the necessary computing power, could you make a 3-D image the same way? I mean, is it now technologically feasible to make pixels small enough and compact enough to make a changing 3-D holographic image?

Re:? 2-D hologram ?

[uberdave]

I understand that they already do that for static 3D images. Check out this company for some examples.

Re:? 2-D hologram ?

[James Turpin]

It was known how to make static 3-D holograms with a laser before lasers were invented. 3-D television is a whole different matter.

If I understand correctly, there is no fundamental difference between 2-D and 3-D holograms except for computer processing time. So if they can make a projector that uses 2-D holograms, they should also be able to make a projector that uses 3-D holograms.

I would really like to see something on how the hardware works, and the algorithm for generating the interference pattern of the 2-D hologram, so that I can see exactly what are the hurdles in making 3-D moving images.

Re:? 2-D hologram ?

[uberdave]

The factor that makes 2D work is that you can project it onto a screen. You can't do that with 3D . Light doesn't bend in mid-air, so you're not going to get an R2D2 style hologram projector. In order to see a 3D image, you somehow have to look through the holographic plate. For mass viewing, that means you need a large holographic plate, and that means large processing speeds.

Re:? 2-D hologram ?

[James Turpin]

Mass viewing? That is not where I was going.

VR glasses that don't give eye-strain is more like it. One can use fairly small screens for that. Two screens, each a few square centimeters, about the size of an eye, would be sufficient I think. One can probably reduce the size even further by using optics to magnify a smaller 3D image. Any distortions can be compensated for by the computer that generates the image. One could also compensate for prescription glasses because you are generating the holograms on the fly. Make a first-person shooter that is compatible with the no-strain 3D glasses, and 3D could be here to stay. I'd love to work on something like that.

Unfortunate

[Lord_Dweomer]

While I think this will have some applications, this is definitely not the solution to the display problem plaguing small devices with even smaller screens, like cellphones.

I believe the real solution will be when they can display that screen hovering in the air wherever you want.

You see, the problem is that people don't want to have to worry about projecting something onto somewhere, they want to just have the screen in front of them, and a holographic screen that hovers where they want would do the trick.

Special Algorithms

[drooling-dog]

special algorithms

The answer to this and most of life's other thorny problems, I expect...

Re:Special Algorithms

[NeuroManson]

So are you saying the entire algorithm consists of "42"?

Here are a couple more images

[Anonymous Coward]

http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache:jdiZwftMXhIJ:w ww2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~eb296/research.shtml+Real-Time+ Binary+Hologram+Generation+for&hl=en

They all look pretty naff.

Personally I think scanning laser projection makes a lot more sense. They need some mechanical parts for deflection, but just like this device they need no optics ... and they can still produce high quality images, rather than needing coarse approximations like this approach.

Re:Here are a couple more images

[Anonymous Coward]

"Naff?" Spolk Ingresh, prease.

Some really exciting possibilities

[LeBlanc_Joey]

Maybe it would be possibe for a computer to use both this and one of those projected keyboards you could have a tiny useful device.

Star Trek Voyager

[The Original Yama]

On the topic of holograms in sci fi, was anyone else reminded of the mobile hologram emitter used by The Doctor in Star Trek Voyager? IIRC, they had to get that technology from the 27th century (via 1996...). Here in the 21st century we're already partway there.

Re:Star Trek Voyager

[Anonymous Coward]

why?

Yo, dude, you like behind the curve ...

[porky_pig_jr]

everything comes in a cellphone nowdays. your toaster will soon come in a cellphone.

Re:Yo, dude, you like behind the curve ...

[Anonymous Coward]

YES!
I've always wanted to eat a 3x3x0.5 mm toast!

Editors do your job too

[Anonymous Coward]

"Note that this text belongs to Roland Piquepaille and comes from his weblog; submitters, please strive to make your sources clear."

Editors please strive to RTFA every now and then.

The necessary ingredient...

[Anonymous Coward]

You gotta love those "special algorithms". They can do just about anything.

Re:I dont't know Sven-Erik, but he didn't wrote th

[DAldredge]

You will learn that /. editors don't edit. They randomly click the accept button.

More bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

As everyone knows, "Timothy" is actually Cory Doctorow...and this post lives up to Doctorow's usual habit of churning out technobullshit. Hey, Cory, why not some more posts telling us how "AI is only 20 years away" (yeah, jerkoff, it's been "only 20 years away" since 1956), how solid-state crystal data storage promising trillions of megabytes per cubic centimeter is "only 15 years away" (that pipe dream has been only 15 years away since the mid 60s), and my personal favorite -- "clean fusion power promises electricity too cheap to meter." For the last 50 years. And counting.
When will people get tired of this horseshit and start applying some skeptical critical thinking?

End of monitors??

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mark the begining of the end monitors?

Why?

Well, if I have a nice pocket projector that can do highres (why not have higher and higher res??), then why not by a highly reflective material, and PROJECT onto it, then I don't need a monitor at all!!!

Ok, if I can't have that.. at least I can have a home theater with me wherever I go.

Video iPod?

[webteeth]

Possibly down the road, this same technology may be used in the "Video iPod". I think it would be awesome: go on a road trip, and the kids can watch a DVD quality video in the back seat.

Nahhh...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Making a raster image using lasers isn't eactly easy. In the past, it required a mirror that swivels on two axis (axes?), quickly and accurately."

Well that's silly. All you need to bend light is a massive yet small object. And singularities such as those found in black holes, or bits of neutron star matter, have been available in every corner drugstore since 1985!

This could be bad.

[7-Vodka]

This has the potential for being extremely annoying.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who's been in a movie theatre with the annoying jerk and the laser pointer.

Note that this text belongs to Roland Piquepaille

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, please. Lets not forget SlashBot Whore Rolaids Pique-a-peck-a-piquepalies

Timothy needs his weekly dick rub.

Don't stare into projector with remaining eye...

[totoanihilation]

So. How safe is it to talk on your cellphone, accidently turn on the projector and get someone in the eye?

Software patents

[Admiral Burrito]

I hate to say it, but this algorithm is exactly the kind of thing that should be patentable. It's innovative (as far as I know; I'm not an optics guy) and I think it's reasonable to say that the inventors deserve a temporary monopoly so that they can profit from their invention. Unfortunately, in this case that means a software patent.

I'm pretty strongly against software being patentable (as most /.ers seem to be), but it's still worth noting that in some cases it might be reasonable.

pardon?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Update: 07/03 21:21 GMT by T: Note that this text belongs to Roland Piquepaille and comes from his weblog; submitters, please strive to make your sources clear."

... how about the editors actually click the supplied links and read? sheesh, timothy.

Are these really holograms...

[cr0sh]

...or is it a reconfigurable diffraction grating?

Or maybe - are diffraction gratings a form of a hologram?

What I am trying to get at, is that they appear to have used a microdisplay to generate a diffraction grating pattern that generates the resultant image - similar to how the el-cheapo laser pointer keychain devices use small diffraction gratings to "project" words and drawings on walls.

Is there more to this? Am I missing something? Whatever the case, it looks like very interesting and promising technology...

Re:Are these really holograms...

[pherth]

Diffraction gratings are the building blocks of holograms. Simply spoken, like bitmap images are built from pixels, holograms are created by overlaying a multitude of gratings.

Anything to Do Away with Miniature Displays!

[OldeClegg]

Yeah ok, I didn't rtfa, but I just wanted to say that any progress toward ending the use of miniature displays for portable devices sounds good to me. I mean, it's a shame that today a 17" display on a laptop is considered large. Give us even a 24" high res display projected out of a pocket size PDA with wide bandwidth wireless, and we're freed from cubes and desks forever. Hell, even VGA resolution at 15" would yield an incredible increase in PDA usability. (I've been waiting for decent affordable monitor glasses, 10x8 is the best that seems to be available. Feh.)

Plasma Burn-IN?

[Slashamatic]

What about burn-in? Plasma screens tend to be quite sensitive to static images being shown over a period, i.e., even logos.

I believe projectors to be superior, but unless you really have a theatre to use them in, between ambient lighting, seating position and all of the rest of it, you will suffer.

Availble in 2 to 5 year? More like 10+

[Anonymous Coward]

Great invention

(i wonder if other /. 'ers will say it is an obvious non-original combination of ideas with prior art in star wars and thus cant't be patented...)

Anyways on with my point, i have been watching the progression of OLED displays from CDT (who invented OLED).

It has taken them 10 years before getting anything to market. I would expect the same here, taking anything from research labs to market always take longer than the researchers think, but personally i can't wait :-)

Re:Availble in 2 to 5 year? More like 10+

[Anonymous Coward]

oops, of course I meant PLED not OLED.

And I suppose a link would be nice - http://www.cdtltd.co.uk/technology/38.asp

For me this tech is still the next big thing - has the ability to change mobile computing raically by dramtically inbcreasing battery life or reducing weight & size.

5 years is optimistic

[HuguesT]

Lots can happen in 5 years, but at present the image quality is not great and it's grey-levels only, right now a current PC takes 2 seconds per image to render the correct hologram. At Moore doubling speed it will take more than five years until little embedded processors in cell phones can render @30fps.

Unless a large amount of money gets dumped on this idea look for it in 10 years' time or thereabouts.

Then you can run games & MS Office on your cel

[Anonymous Coward]

With virtual keybord - there is no need for a notebook any more.

Projectile for free...

[mbottrell]

I've been making mobile projectiles for years... Each time a kid comes to the table SMSing their friends... instant mobile projectile!

Now why can't they stick something useful in my fone... like something that puts the rubbish out, washes the dishes, and walks the dog?

Moore's law

[orasio]

Don't forget that this is a highly parallelizable task, and can be accomplished by parallel cores. Current GPUs have several times the power of your regular Xeon or AMD64, when it comes to just doing simple parallel math calculation.
In less than 5 years, and even if Moore's law applies to kinda-RISC processors, they can accomplish 60x P4 speeds at making specialized calculations. Cost would be an issue, but probably, not even power consumption will be. Anyway, it's a drawback, but not a major drawback, to require a wall socket to project on a ... wall, most of the time.

video projecting cell phones?

[Anonymous Coward]

...I'd be happy if someone put a working cell phone in my Nextel cell phone!!!

Oblig Terminator Ref

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but when will we be able to put them in robots?

And how will that help the robots find Sarah Connor, hmm?

Imagine the potential...

[davidsyes]

For this to be used in medicine... Post Operative Recovery wards could use this to project cheery environs for the recovering patients.

Police or security forces could use this technology to deceive and disarm (or, maybe incite) deranged persons so as to minimize gunfire, violence, or the like.

The security industry could play loops of residents in a home to make it look lived-in while the organics are out on vacation.

Maybe they can be used to even project a false car-pooler, or simulate two or more people on lovers' lane (tho you'd need to simulate the shocks being compressed and releaseed, I suppose...)

But, to take a pound off of laptop...

David Syes

Oh, great, more government regulation...

[davidsyes]

Now, imagine when people decide to project their personal lives upon the public once the projection quality is plasma-level, even in outside light. Even if Rated-G, the governments of various levels will try to regulate that a person projecting images--still or motion-- is a de facto theatre.

All such persons must pay to play, or cough up mobile theater administration fees, not only to the county and the city, but to the movie industry as well.

Probably someone will decide that this is not a to-be-sold product, but a used-under-licensing-and-under-royalties.

How to manage it? WiFi or other types of receivers will listen for the encoded beacon/transponder signal each of these new devices could be fitted with. If anyone transmits in locales where the receivers are set up, then those counties and cities will ask you for your theatre permit...

At the very least,

Uggghhhh

David Syes

POWER Projection

[davidsyes]

Now, we taxpayers can fund huge prismatic or other types of lenses for defense.

See, the Navy now can "project" it's carriers off shore. Combined with the high-altitude blimp/dirigibles/airship whatever you want to call it, or with submarines floating nitrogen-floated balloons or Tomahawk-like predator surveillance craft, the SHAPE of a carrier (less the wake, well, DARPA might figure out how to "fake wake", like "fake shake").

Or, just use the reactors to power a fake CVGB so only the CVN need go out. Then, when hit, they can fake watertight integrity!

"WE have projected our ships and our flag! We are VICTORIOUS!"

David Syes