Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U of CA Constructs 220 Million Pixel Display

Posted by samzenpus on from the wider-than-wide-screen dept.

eldavojohn writes "Engineers at the University of California, San Diego have built a 220 million pixel display across 55 high-resolution tiled screens. Linked via optical fiber to Calit2's building at UC Irvine, the display can deliver real-time rendered graphics simultaneously across 420 million pixels to audiences in Irvine and San Diego."

12 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. Across Irvine and San Diego? by admactanium · · Score: 5, Funny

    they're an hour apart. that's a lot of people fighting over the remote.

  2. Remove the seams by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then we'll talk.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Remove the seams by Fred_A · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think that since you're supposed to look at it from 7km away you can't see the seams.

      The main problem is that they need 408 repeaters for the USB mouse and keyboard.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
  3. It's called UCSD or by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 5, Informative

    University of California at San Diego.

    Can't samezenpus get the least bit of editorial right? Oh, yeah, he can't. He's samzenpus, and he's not an editor, he's an idiotor.

    I mean wtf is U of CA? I've never seen it written like that, ever.

    And to get this rant back on topic:

    Is the screen effervescent?

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    1. Re:It's called UCSD or by mchanaud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      as a non american, U of CA is much more comprehensible than UCSD. But, wait, who really matters about non american readers?

    2. Re:It's called UCSD or by MrNaz · · Score: 4, Funny

      We're also aware that /. is run by Americans, and that Americans aren't aware that there are any Universities in Canada.

      Mods: That's a joke. That's "haha" as distinctly opposed to "die troll scumbag take this -1 and then we'll see who has the last laugh!".

      --
      I hate printers.
  4. $420 Million Webpage by Joebert · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just in time for my $420 million webpage.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  5. Re:Human eyes by tonsofpcs · · Score: 5, Informative

    No. "It's exciting," said Joerg Meyer, a professor of computer graphics and visualization who helped develop the screen's software. "This display has higher resolution than the human retina can see." http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/californi a/la-me-highdef13aug13,1,5603082.story?coll=la-hea dlines-pe-california

    --
    Video Production Support
  6. Re:My first thought,,, by RuBLed · · Score: 5, Funny

    mine was... What's the return policy on dead pixels?

  7. No, but yes by SpeedyDX · · Score: 5, Informative

    The resolution of the human eye is relatively minute (it's usually not measured in MP, but I think the best equivelence was quoted around 15 MP at any given time). The easiest way to explain it, I think, is that your eyes are never in the same position for more than a split second. It's constantly moving and looking at any given object from a multitude of different angles. So no, it isn't able to see 220MP, but at the same time, it is (theoretically) able to see a better image with a higher pixel count, because of the fact that your eye is never stationary.

    But that doesn't take into account your brain. Your eye transfers raw data to your brain similar to a bitmap/RAW file. The way your brain processes this information, though, is more like a vector image. Our brains "see" lines and shapes much more than it sees individual points of colours. Which makes the answer even more complicated. We don't really see all the pixels, but we're able to piece together most of the pixels while our eyes move about, ALTHOUGH our brain "transforms" that information so it makes more sense to us.

    A really neat example that illustrates how the brain processes raw data: close your eyes, and get a friend (or yourself, if you can trust yourself not to cheat) to hold up something that is near the outer edge of your peripheral vision. Open your eyes, but don't move them - keep looking straight ahead so that the object is still near the edge of your peripheral vision. You can SEE the object, and can possibly even tell what it is. But what colour is the object? Even though your eyes are able to see colour even in your peripheral vision, the brain doesn't think that the information of colour is as important as the outline/shape of the object. It is only when something is near the centre of your vision (in other words, where your attention usually is) that you can tell what colour it is.

    1. Re:No, but yes by wumpus188 · · Score: 5, Informative

      No. You cannot see the color of the peripheral object because the cone cells, which are responsible for the color vision, become sparse towards the edge of the retina.

  8. Not a theater system! by ejito · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People who are dismissing as just a wall of monitors are mistaken. It takes dozens of computers to run that resolution, which is no trivial task. This is not a theater system, so complaining about seams misses the point entirely. If they were just looking for a semi-large seamless screen, any shmuck could just use a single projector.

    This system allows groups of researchers to review large amounts of visual data in both macro and micro scale. If you want to see the micro scale, you simply walk up to an individual monitor. Review can be done simultaneously among many people.

    For a seamless, 100 million pixel projection screen (this is also not trivial, as removing seams requires real time brightness and color correction along edges) can be viewed here. In comparison, an IMAX theater uses a very large single projector unit weighing nearly 2 tons.

    The sister screen at UCI can be viewed at here.