Slashdot Mirror


Matchbox-sized Laser Projector

soupisgoodfood writes "Light Blue Optics Ltd. have developed a laser-based projector called the PVPro. It's small enough to fit into a cellphone or PDA. Some specs: Supports resolutions up to 2048x1280; No moving parts; Infinite focus; Green monochrome, with a colour version expected late 2006; Max consumption of 1.4W with an average of <350mW. Looks a like a good solution to the increasing problem of smaller devices trying to display more information."

27 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. Missing spec by jthayden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Price?

    1. Re:Missing spec by JRGhaddar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually I was wondering if it could project a holographic Princess Leia?

    2. Re:Missing spec by lbrandy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Price?

      The lasers run about 10k$, but the sharks are alot more expensive

  2. Miniature Office Supplies by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now we have the mini projector, I want a mini red stapler.

    and you know what, when it arrives - its mine not yours.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  3. Computer by everphilski · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Once these come out in color, imagine having one of these babies inside your laptop. You can then set your laptop on any work surface 2-10' from a wall and have a big screen monitor. If we want to get fancy even we can slap some gyros and accelerometers into the computer and you can have the computer on your lap, and provided you don't wiggle too much ( no pr0n ) you could probably work fairly well from a sofa as well, the software would adjust the image and angle of the projector using servos, etc. Very cool.

    1. Re:Computer by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Once these come out in color, imagine having one of these babies inside your laptop.

      I have a better idea. Imagine a portable LaserMAME console. You could project classic Asteroids or Gravitar games onto walls! OR, they could use it to bring back the Vectrex in all its "portable" glory! (Perhaps even Game Boy sized?) :)

    2. Re:Computer by 0110011001110101 · · Score: 5, Funny
      I have an even better idea. Use this to project a fake doorway onto walls and watch your victims slam into walls, ala Bugs Bunny.

      Hours of fun in my book, much more so than Asteroids or Gravitar. It's funny when it's not you.

      --
      Don't anthropomorphize computers: they hate that.
  4. color ? by Arthur+B. · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, that's easy for the green and red part, the blue laser is other business.. they don't come cheap nor small.

    --
    \u262D = \u5350
    1. Re:color ? by Arthur+B. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Naa, it's blue-violet... use it and you'll get some shity colors. For some reason, the human eye perceives some red in the violet (the sensitivity function of the red detecting cells is bimodal with a small bump in the violet)... so as long as there is some red in your image you could compensate it by lowering the amount of red but you won't get true-blue. Oh well, maybe not that much of a problem, after all, the brain perception of color is relative to the context rather than absolute, so in a dark room this would give good results, but not in a lighted environment with color references.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    2. Re:color ? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Informative

      That won't work: There's no red light in the blue-violet laser. Indeed, the laser has just one exact wavelength, so a filter could not change its color (because the color change is done by absorbing different wavelengths). The "problem" is within our eyes, because our red-receptors don't just react to "red light" (longest visible waves), but also to "blue-violet light" (shortest visible waves). So unless you find a way to create "negative red" (i.e. a sort of light which suppresses the red receptors instead of activating them), there's no way to supress that "red".

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  5. News From The Past:Similar Projector in Full Color by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Fraunhofer Institute for Photonic Microsystems in Dresden, Germany actually had a similar Projector one year ago.
    It works at 640x480 in Full Color (3*8 bit).

    It's even smaller at the size of "2 sugar cubes".

    See here for yourself

  6. Did anyone else notice this? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Funny
    From the summary:
    Light Blue Optics Ltd. have developed [...] Some specs: [...] Green monochrome [...]

    If they make a monochrome projector, I'd at least expect a light blue one! :-)
    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  7. Action shot? by Winterblink · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok, so there's pictures of it sitting next to a penny, and in the hands of some dude. How about a picture of it projecting something?

    --
    "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
    -Hoban Washburn
    1. Re:Action shot? by PatrickThomson · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's actually a 2p coin, it's about 2.5cm in diameter.

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
  8. About time! by bangzilla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hate getting ripped off by projector manufacturers who charge me in the hundreds of dollars for projector bulbs that (a) cost a fraction to make and (b) burn out in much less time than advertised. Sure, this built-in to a cell phone could be fun/useful, however my immediate need is a projector for my laptop that is small, robust, doesn't consume *very* expensive bulbs, full color and high resolution. This device may not be there just yet -- but it appears to be within spitting distance. If this company can't get there -- someone else will. All this I applaud.

    --
    Rich people are eccentric. Poor people are strange. Me, I'd be happy with odd.
    1. Re:About time! by spinozaq · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mecury arc lamps have much _lower_ profit margins then other consumer electronic parts. So do projectors in general. The lamps have very exotic materials in them, like very very pure tungsten and specially manufactured quartz casings. You're not getting ripped off. The prices would come down some if more projectors were out there in people's living rooms, but not by much. If there were really a racket on mecury arc lamps, we could do something about it. Hopefully laser tech will eliminate the need for these expensive ( and very polluting, in manufacture and waste ) mecury arc lamps.

  9. Sweet by Pxtl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No moving parts is neat - the galvanometers they use for laser-light shows are a colossal PITA.

    I'm expecting to see game consoles that don't need a TV anymore - would be super-portable.

    Now, the question is when we can couple this with pupil-tracking to draw the images directly onto the retina. I want my metaverse.

  10. Heads Up Displays? by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is this the sort of thing that could be used in HUD's in cars? Or what about high-resolution wearable displays? It's probalby now just a matter of time before you see people walking around with their video ipods completely oblivious to everything going on around them (as if they're not now) as they watch porn on the subway while going to/from work.

  11. Yeah really, no pictures? by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some news stories don't need them, but anytime a press release comes out about some new visual technology (eInk, laser projectors, etc), I get annoyed that they can't show the technology being demonstrated. Sounds more like vaporware and a company trying to get investors excited to dump millions into them before finding out the technology isn't feasible and walk away with those millions leaving the company bankrupt.

    Rant aside, if this technology DOES exist, it is very cool. Integrating a projector into mobile devices or notebooks is great, but considering the resolution, it would a great Home Theater projector as well. Laser light remains strong and bright over long distances, so in theory, you should be able to get big screens in the home without worrying about dimming the image.

    The only thing I worry about is that while having a high resolution, laser is such a highly focused light that will these "pixels" be too separated to offer a decent image? Even at 2000+ points across, if those points are spread out too far apart, then you won't get a decent projected image. Chances are, mobile applications where you can shine the image a few inches or feet away is probably all that laser projectors are good for. Throwing the image across 20 feet, while still bright, might separate the pixels too much and make for a poor image.

    So far, it looks like this company is just looking for investors, and as such, I would consider this vaporware. They are definitely looking to bank off the success of iPod video devices as well as the current fad of displaying television on Cell phones.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
    1. Re:Yeah really, no pictures? by Rich0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I doubt it is pulsed - the laser is probably on continuously at variable amplitude. So, the pixels will just blur into each other. This is how a regular TV works as far as I understand. If you look at a TV you see lots of dots, but the reality is that the bandwidth on a standard TV is not sufficient to go from black to full RGB in one pixel - which is why small-fonts on TVs look horrible (it is also why analog TV is described in terms of lines of resolution and not columns - only the lines are discrete). A computer monitor is more expensive than a TV because it actually achives high bandwidth and consequently truly high resolution.

      My guess is that with the laser projector each pixel will really be a horizontal dash. The only place you might get separation would be in the vertical direction, but you get that even with normal TVs and it isn't very noticable. If you fired it against a screen that would scatter the light somewhat then it might help in this regard.

  12. Combine this with a virtual keyboard by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They also have a virtual keyboard for sale. Imagine setting your cell phone on a table, pushing a button, and getting an instant monitor and keyboard. No one will need PCs for surfing the web and common functionality. Give it ten years or so to become widespread.

  13. Re: Screens have rights, too ;-) by D4C5CE · · Score: 3, Funny
    Having a projector that size would make it so much easier to view all your converted, downloaded, mega-shrinked videos on the back of the student in front of you.
    Just be sure to limit the brightness and keep the image moving to prevent burn-in on that poor guy... for most self-respecting technology companies (outside Redmond at least, but maybe even they run Linux in private) probably wouldn't want to recruit anyone with a Windows desktop and Start bar tattooed on his back! ;-/ What is more, nobody likes to hear yells of "Alt-F4" on the beach or [censored] anywhere else...
  14. Re:light sources by spinozaq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Old school projector bulbs do get bright enough do use with modern projectors. There are still two problems with them though. First, the light is not white at all, it tends a lot toward yellow, which is unacceptable for a color projection. Second, to deliver that much light, they draw anywhere from 600-900 watts. That hurts in two ways, heat, which puts a strain on size and cooling methods. People don't want that much noise in their living room. It also cuts into the only advantage, which is cost. 600 watts vs 200 watts will cost an extra $180 in electricity over 3000 hours at .15 cents per KiloWatt Hour. So there really is no advantage at all. They are the best technology for the purpose. Don't you think if there was something better in an up and comming market like this someone would be selling it? The world is not out to get you.

  15. Re:News From The Past:Similar Projector in Full Co by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's even smaller at the size of "2 sugar cubes".


    Damned europeans and their metric units. Hrumph.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  16. Roadrunner is more like it by MisterSquid · · Score: 3, Informative

    Use this to project a fake doorway onto walls and watch your victims slam into walls, ala Bugs Bunny.

    Bugs Bunny cartoons do not feature advanced technology whereas Roadrunner cartoons do. So what really would happen is that you would project a fake doorway onto the wall, your intended victim would walk up to the wall, open the door, walk through the doorway and close the door behind. Astounded, you'd run to the door only to slam into the brick wall, a la Wile E. Coyote.

    --
    blog
  17. Re:Yes, Really by everphilski · · Score: 3, Informative

    You didn't read the spec sheet. The brightness at 15" is 200 candela - aproximately the brightness of a LCD screen. The brightness at 7" - half the distance - is 880 candela. Now do a curvefit and tell me how bright it is going to be at a comfortable viewing distance - 120"++ for a home theater (~50 candela). (answer: not very.)

  18. Re:Yes, Really by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's do the math. The screen is 15" diagonal (NOT 15" viewing distance). At an aspect ratio of 16:9 that's a screen that's about 13"x7" (I'm using exact values in the calculations). So, calculating area and switching to sane units, that's a display area of 0.062 m^2. If this thing does 200 cd/m^2 at that distance then it's putting out a total of 12.4 cd, at a power consumption of between 0.35W and 1.4W.

    Now, let's say we want a 64" flat panel display. At 16:9 that would be about 55"x31", or an area of 1.13 m^2. Our little projector will only do about 11 cd/m^2 on that. Not good.

    BUT... if the technology can be scaled to higher powers:

    to get back to our 200 cd/m^2 for the big screen experience we need about 18 times more power. That is, between 6.4W and 25W, assuming no extra losses when scaling up.

    Just for fun, I checked out home theatre projectors. I found one at 750 lumens, another at 1200. Let's say 1000. That's 25 candela. SO, to get equal performance to the standard projector we need to put out twice what we are. We might expect a power drain of 700 mW - 2.8 W. Not bad!

    Surely they can make this thing put out twice as much light as it does... in fact, we might expect the full colour version to put out three times as much light, which (unless I made a mistake) should make it brighter than most home theatre projectors. Presumably they can do that in something that's not much bigger than, say, a cell phone. Provided this thing works, it should be pretty cool.