Slashdot Mirror


World's Smallest Projector

SkinnyGuy writes "Mixed into all of PCMag's CES preview coverage is an interesting story about a projector that's no bigger than an iPod. An early version showed up at last year's CES, but some of the guts weren't inside the small body. Now they are. It uses lasers to project the image. Really fascinating, futuristic stuff."

246 comments

  1. Underwater Projection by daddyrief · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't let the, sharks get a hold, of this one...

    --
    "Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." -Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Underwater Projection by Traf-O-Data-Hater · · Score: 1

      You, beat me to it, that's what I, was going to say!

    2. Re:Underwater Projection by edittard · · Score: 1

      I am, William, Shatner. You insensitive, clod.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    3. Re:Underwater Projection by gynosaur · · Score: 2, Funny

      Help me Obi Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope!

      --
      -- If God hadn't intended for us to eat animals then why did he make them out of meat? -Homer Simpson
    4. Re:Underwater Projection by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      Don't let the, sharks get a hold, of this one...

      When did William Shatner start posting on Slashdot?

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  2. Obligitory laser post by stas2k · · Score: 3, Funny

    Frickin' lasers! Now all we need is some sharks.

    1. Re:Obligitory laser post by stderr_dk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Really, really small sharks...

      --
      alias sudo="echo make it yourself #" ; # https://pipedot.org/~stderr & http://soylentnews.org/~stderr
    2. Re:Obligitory laser post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wrong. With such a small projector...all we need is a droid.

    3. Re:Obligitory laser post by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Funny

      will angry mutated sea-bass suffice?

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    4. Re:Obligitory laser post by owlstead · · Score: 1, Informative

      Why not use an Etmopterus perryi, aka the dwarf lantern shark? Don't yer believe, the picture is of a real sized, mature shark. Right, I'm going to ready my cage to catch this brute.

      (look ma, I can Google)

    5. Re:Obligitory laser post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone beat you to the joke by 60 whole seconds. YOU ARE REDUNDANT! EAT MODERATED FURY!

    6. Re:Obligitory laser post by badran · · Score: 0

      you mean sperm.

    7. Re:Obligitory laser post by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Good luck, hope you get a big one. I hear they grow up to 14 Centimeters!

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  3. Mess with the teachers by Frac+O+Mac · · Score: 1

    Heh, I can only imagine how fun it would be to mess around with in a high school classroom.

    1. Re:Mess with the teachers by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what highschool you went to, but in mine they didn't use projectors. They might have used an overhead once or twice a month if that. College on the other hand is taught solely by slides which you can download ahead of time... now THAT presents and opportunity for fun if you can get a front row seat... :)

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    2. Re:Mess with the teachers by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I don't know when you went to highschool, but I assure you times are a changing.

      I was class of '99 (at a public school, city with median family income of ~75k, with bussing the school was lower though) and the science teachers already had projectors (clear screens they put on the overheads to show powerpoints).

      My friend teaches now (Catholic school, and not a great one), and all of the classrooms have smart boards. Even our public schools are getting them in many classrooms in this district (where I live now, median family income ~35k, school district is the city, so that lines up) are getting smart boards and projectors.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re:Mess with the teachers by krunchyfrog · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure you understood the joke here.

      Kids + mini projector = annoying the teachers just like we used to reflect sunshine in their faces when we were kids.

      --
      printf($randomline(sigs.txt) \n "-- "$randomline(authors.txt));
      -- myself
    4. Re:Mess with the teachers by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      A classroom? Are you kidding? Think about using this in a White House Press Room Briefing to project video evidence of the lies!

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    5. Re:Mess with the teachers by ls+-la · · Score: 1

      A classroom? Are you kidding? Think about using this in a White House Press Room Briefing to project video evidence of the lies! A good way to disappear to a secret CIA prison and never be heard from again.
  4. obscenity wants to be anthropomorphised by User+956 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mixed into all of PCMag's CES preview coverage is an interesting story about a projector that's no bigger than an iPod.

    I think the fact that they're missing in all of this, is that porn doesn't care what size it is.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:obscenity wants to be anthropomorphised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's true? It's not the size of the boat, it's the motion of the ocean.

  5. now that is progress by jacquesm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Finally something that is not wasting 90% of it's energy as heat, not to mention replacing ridiculously expensive bulbs every few hundred hours.
    A low intensity version of this and you don't need a projection area any more, just beam it in directly :)
    note to self: do not stare into laser with remaining eye...

    1. Re:now that is progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally something that is not wasting 90% of it's energy as heat, not to mention replacing ridiculously expensive bulbs every few hundred hours. Not to mention the size. Theoretically we could mount one of these in an R2 unit. Are there Linux drivers for this device because we all know that the astromech droids run Linux while the protocol droids run Vista.
    2. Re:now that is progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually.. their original product plan had the image directly beamed into your eye... virtual retinal display. Rumor has it that Bill Gates suggested they turn it around and point it at a wall instead. Their "Power of one" motto pointed out that there were no problems with dead pixels ( unless of course you lost one color or the "one" pixel ). The nicest part in my opinion is that there is no focus as the image is being transmitted from what would be the focal point ( hence the "virtual image" bit ). I suspect this focus-less projector will allow better "surround" virtual reality systems.. just blast the image onto full-face visor! They must've thought of this.. it's such an obvious use?

        As far as the laser.. I don't think it uses a laser anymore.. the led update was surprisingly richer and made the laser version look like chicken scratches.

        Nice to see they might make some money off of this technology instead of turning into a boring barcode scanning company. Maybe they had some other money makers to shake lately?

    3. Re:now that is progress by somersault · · Score: 1

      You can already get media edition R2s with projectors. Not sure if they come with a lightsabre - traditionally you have to assemble your own.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:now that is progress by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Talk about progress, the article shows a picture of one of these projectors plugged into an iPod's headphone jack. Since when can an iPod's headphone jack deliver video?
      (check the slide show in TFA. It's the last slide. Maybe I missed something).

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:now that is progress by DanCo · · Score: 1

      Um... for a while now - I think 4th gen iPods, and definitely 5th gen and up have an extra connection in the headphone jack that, when used with the appropriate cable, can deliver video. Most camcorder cables will work with the iPod for outputting video.

      --
      It's not my fault - greatness was thrust upon me.
    6. Re:now that is progress by redxxx · · Score: 1

      saw this and my first thought was you could rig it as a wearable hud or windshield projection for a car. neat idea, and the price tag doesn't sound horrible for a fairly new product. Might eventually be semi-disposable eventually opening it up for entertaining things like electronic graffiti. though the range is probably pretty limited even at night. All sorts of nifty uses for something like this.

    7. Re:now that is progress by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Um all video and photo iPods have an s video out ability. It plugs into the headphone jack with a special cable. I got one with my camera and it works for the iPod as well.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    8. Re:now that is progress by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Finally something that is not wasting 90% of it's energy as heat, not to mention replacing ridiculously expensive bulbs every few hundred hours.


      From the article, I get the impression the quality of the projection is probably not competitive with standard projectors. It is referred to as a cheap device you'd take to your friends' house to share iPod videos, which sits only a few feet from the screen, has a low resolution, and runs for several hours from a small battery (implying it's not terribly bright).


      I wonder what the refresh rate is? I would think it would have to be very high to work well. Unlike a CRT, it doesn't even have phosphors, which have some persistence to reduce flicker.


      I hope I am wrong and it's a revolutionary product.

    9. Re:now that is progress by ensignyu · · Score: 1

      That's actually where Microvision started off -- retinal scanning displays that project directly into your eyes with lasers. It turns out it's slightly expensive ($4000+ for monochrome red) to get it down to a size and weight you'd be comfortable wearing, so after countless millions in research they're probably going for something more mass marketable.

    10. Re:now that is progress by infidel13 · · Score: 1

      Laser displays via full-face visors? That sounds like something out of Snow Crash....

      --
      quia potentia mens mentis
    11. Re:now that is progress by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      for a while now - I think 4th gen iPods, and definitely 5th gen and up have an extra connection in the headphone jack that, when used with the appropriate cable, can deliver video.
      That is so cool. I had no idea. Thanks for the info, DanCo. I know my old iPod can't deliver video like that. It's a good reason to update my model.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  6. I refer you to my signature... by Kawahee · · Score: 4, Funny
    Why is that comma there?

    It uses, lasers to project the image
    I thought that we had editors to check for this sort of, thing.
    --
    I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
    1. Re:I refer you to my signature... by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      I thought that we had editors ymbnh
    2. Re:I refer you to my signature... by ianare · · Score: 1

      "Editors? We ain't got no editors. We don't need no editors! I don't have to show you any stinkin' editors!!"

    3. Re:I refer you to my signature... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sigh... I know... as many times as they've been caught making grade-school level spelling errors, you begin to suspect that they in fact, are using internet exploiter rather than firefox or at the least ignoring spell check.

    4. Re:I refer you to my signature... by foobsr · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why is that comma there?

      Everything gets smaller, brains included.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    5. Re:I refer you to my signature... by IntelliTubbie · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why is that comma there?

      It uses, lasers to project the image
      I thought that we had editors to check for this sort of, thing. Maybe William Gibson wrote that post, here? (I love his books, but I get annoyed by the use of extraneous commas, in his writing. Argh ... I just did it, again.)

      Cheers,
      IT
      --

      Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.

    6. Re:I refer you to my signature... by nacturation · · Score: 1

      The submitter "SkinnyGuy" is actually William Shatner 40 years ago.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    7. Re:I refer you to my signature... by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Why is that comma there?

      After staring into a laser projector, extra commas are the least of one's problems.

    8. Re:I refer you to my signature... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      A month? Try a day, and even then I doubt you'll ever subscribe to Slashdot.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    9. Re:I refer you to my signature... by cnettel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only editor you need is emacs.

    10. Re:I refer you to my signature... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes things sound perfectly normal in your head or when said out loud, but don't quite read right when written. I suspect the comma in question here is standing in for a dramatic pause. This device is powered by . . . lasers! While an ellipses would undoubtedly have been less confusing then the comma there, I suspect it isn't random as you suggest.

    11. Re:I refer you to my signature... by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      While an ellipses would undoubtedly have been less confusing then the comma there, I suspect it isn't random as you suggest.

      Ellipses, then a comma? Don't you think that might look a little..., awkward?

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    12. Re:I refer you to my signature... by wuputah · · Score: 1
      Editing as a whole has gone down the tubes. Check out this paragraph from the article itself, which contains a strange sentence fragment:

      Hannigan explained that SHOW is plug and play and should work with any video-out capable devices, including laptops, the iPod touch, and some phones. The pocket-size projector.

      Most likely, it is a copy-and-paste job from the article written for another medium (e.g. the print version of PC Mag), but I see these kind of errors all too often.

      --
      Brought to you by the numbers π, e, and 0x1B.
    13. Re:I refer you to my signature... by wuputah · · Score: 1
      PS. I am not claiming I am any better, but then again I am not paid to write or edit on Slashdot!

      ...these kinds of errors...
      --
      Brought to you by the numbers π, e, and 0x1B.
    14. Re:I refer you to my signature... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the laser beam dangerous for eyes?
      I'm thinking if anyone will let her/his kids to play with this gadget.

    15. Re:I refer you to my signature... by LaoChe1984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yours, is the incorrect, one. Why, is that comma, there? I thought, that we had editors, to check, for this sort of thing. There, fixed those, for you. James T. Kirk

    16. Re:I refer you to my signature... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except in William Gibson's writing every comma actually does have a grammatical reason to be there. That's simply not the case with the original summary (now fixed), nor with your extraneous commas. Of course, you need to understand the language, and the correct use of commas, to know this.

    17. Re:I refer you to my signature... by sootman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The editors, are busy.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    18. Re:I refer you to my signature... by Al+Al+Cool+J · · Score: 1

      The comma provides a pause, for drammatic effect and emphasis. An ellipses would accomplish much the same thing, but can connote the idea that the writer is searching for words, which isn't the case here.

      When speaking the sentence out loud, you would pause to draw in your audience, and then punch the word "lasers".

    19. Re:I refer you to my signature... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's vim.

    20. Re:I refer you to my signature... by earlymon · · Score: 1

      Please know that emacs, like its users, represent the ultimate in refinement and integrated thinking.

      Vi, like its users, is primitive - but nonetheless insanely effective.

      (I'm vi.)

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    21. Re:I refer you to my signature... by clsours · · Score: 1

      Why is that comma there? It uses, lasers to project the image I thought that we had editors to check for this sort of, thing. Gasp, you weren't supposed to see that comma, its a comma chameleon. No, really, it uses COMMA LASERs to project the image. COMMA being the acronym for Common Object Methodology Metamodel Architecture.
      --
      Seagoon: Shut up Eccles!

      Eccles: Shut up Eccles!
    22. Re:I refer you to my signature... by ejasons · · Score: 1

      Yours, is the incorrect, one. Why, is that comma, there? I thought, that we had editors, to check, for this sort of thing. There, fixed those, for you. James T.
      Funny, but even more funny is the "Informative" mod...
  7. My Hope by robbiedo · · Score: 3, Funny

    I hope to hook this up to my laptop while playing Duke Nukem Forever with Chinese Democracy blaring on my stereo. What the heck, lets throw Obama a bone and have him in the White House.

  8. thanks for posting the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My 25,000 shares of MVIS also thanks you. I'm betting big dollar that someday micro projectors will be in every music player and phone, much like almost every phone has a camera now (I made a similar bet on OVTI a few years ago and was not disappointed).

    1. Re:thanks for posting the article by gingerTabs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My 25,000 shares of MVIS also thanks you. I'm betting big dollar that someday micro projectors will be in every music player and phone, much like almost every phone has a camera now (I made a similar bet on OVTI a few years ago and was not disappointed). You must be gutted. There's only a 9 month window over the last 5 years when you could have bought those shares and made any gains. Still, hold out for the future eh :)
  9. Laptops by ianare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This would be awesome for an ultra-portable laptop: just a keyboard without the screen, just project onto any wall ... or use a very light roll-up screen.

    1. Re:Laptops by ZJVavrek · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or one of those laser keyboards. Like this. http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/8193/ Get some reasonably powerful device, add the two of those and maybe some kind of location sensing finger ring for a mouse... voilà, now you have a justifiable reason for Linux on your cell phone. Not that you needed one.

    2. Re:Laptops by johannesg · · Score: 4, Funny

      You want to combine this with a projected keyboard (http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/8193/). And possibly a wiimote-based multitouch interface instead of a mouse. Add a bit of cackling and you'll look like a mad wizard!

      You know what, I think the 21st century has arrived at last!

    3. Re:Laptops by StarfishOne · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Add a bit of cackling and you'll look like a mad wizard!"


      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke


      :D

    4. Re:Laptops by artg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Still needs some work to match Asimov's idea, though.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Radiant

    5. Re:Laptops by smithberry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Made me think of this futuristic device I read about middle of last (!) year with a computer no larger than a pen: http://tech-nex.blogspot.com/2007/07/glance-intothe-future-computer.html A small laser projector is a step towards the future :-)

    6. Re:Laptops by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      How well does a keyboard like that work for touch typing? I usually rest my fingers on the keys. How would this device tell the difference between resting your fingers on the table, and actually pressing a key? Also, what happens when you press a key that is obstructed from it's field of view. I often hit the left alt key by sliding my thumb under my palm to press it with the side of my thumb. Also, the lack of any tactile feedback would be terrible.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    7. Re:Laptops by RedBear · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This would be awesome for an ultra-portable laptop: just a keyboard without the screen, just project onto any wall ... or use a very light roll-up screen. Exactly what I was saying to my wife a couple of weeks ago. The fact is that we're about one step away from having this ultra-portable computer already. As soon as Apple updates the iPhone and iPod Touch to support A) Bluetooth keyboards and B) outputting a higher resolution like the 848x480 resolution supported by this projector, a large portion of modern society will have all the "computer" they need. After all, there are a great many people out there that do nothing but email and web browsing with their computers. Literally the only thing keeping a lot of these folks from using their iPhone as their only computer is the fact that the screen is too small and the keyboard is no good for using all day long.

      Solve those issues and we already almost have right now, today, a full-fledged computer that fits in your pocket. This projector is a big step in the right direction. I will be very disappointed and surprised if the iPhone and iPod Touch don't get these features within the next couple of revisions. You thought the Mac mini was a phenomenon. As soon as these features appear there will finally be a handheld convergent device and you can bet that every other student in America will have one in their hand before long, to say nothing of the rest of society.

    8. Re:Laptops by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      Also, what happens when you press a key that is obstructed from it's field of view. I often hit the left alt key by sliding my thumb under my palm to press it with the side of my thumb. Also, the lack of any tactile feedback would be terrible.

      It won't work for you then, so I suggest you not buy one.

      The rest of us should be ok though.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    9. Re:Laptops by cnettel · · Score: 1
      I got one as a gift from a 10^100 company. I felt quite comfortable with it, and I am a touch typer. I think that it generally just detected hits for normal keys (hence not resting). The real issue for me was that it simply wasn't able to track my normal speed of writing, the specs said it could detect 10 hits per second, and I certainly exceed that in quite long bursts. This is reasonably something that can be improved by better processing. The lack of tactile feedback will of course always be an issue, though.

      In fact, I found the "virtual touchpad" mode of the keyboard more useful.

    10. Re:Laptops by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      It also doesn't seem that much smaller than those foldable laptop style keyboards. What advantages would it have over that?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    11. Re:Laptops by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Add enough power and use it to cut random people's fingers off!

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    12. Re:Laptops by cnettel · · Score: 1

      I haven't looked too much at the foldable ones, but I can tell you that it is light and they keys just about full-size when projected properly. The size is basically to get the proper distance between the projector and the detector. From a technology standpoint, I see it more as a proof-of-concept, where the projector and detector could be integrated into a cellphone, without really increasing the size that much. Again, the ability to switch between touchpad and keyboard functionality is also kind of neat, something you can't do (on the same surface) with an ordinary foldable keyboard. In the context of this article, it's also interesting to imagine the fixed keyboard being replaced by at least a monochrome variable picture, I think the device have uses a fixed physical stencil.

    13. Re:Laptops by Tekgno · · Score: 3, Funny

      ->I put on my robe and Wizard's hat...

    14. Re:Laptops by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      I don't know if the resolution is the real issue here. The photograph of the projected image looked quite grainy--and not in a film buff's "you can see the individual grains of silver" sort of way. DVDs can look a lot better than that, despite the "low resolution".

    15. Re:Laptops by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      Throw in some classic 90's VR and you too can be Johnny Mnemonic.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    16. Re:Laptops by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      Also, the lack of any tactile feedback would be terrible. I sense a great disturbance in the force, as if a million iPhone owning schmucks yelled out in agreement then were suddenly silenced by a smiling portrait of Steve Jobs giving them the finger.
    17. Re:Laptops by holomorph · · Score: 1

      Lol,

      Where are my mod points when I need them?

  10. Possibilities for embedded devices? by zykhou · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While I'm sure the original price tag will be steep, this product could actually have some pretty sweet applications.

    Imagine a singular device, the size of a cell phone, that could be a wholly working portable computer. You set it down and it projects a screen wherever you need it. Imagine that projector with something like this, and some sort of mouse replacement, and you'd have all your IO needs on the go. Instead of being restricted to tiny screens and keyboards, your portable device could be competition for your main desktop (which seems to be the route that consumer electronics are heading).

    I know I can't wait for the day when I carry around one wallet sized (or smaller) device that is an audio player, a cell phone, and feature complete computer, capable of being used for the same applications my laptop is for, but with far less weight and size. Hopefully with devices like this, I won't have to wait until I'm near dead to enjoy such luxuries.

    1. Re:Possibilities for embedded devices? by cheater512 · · Score: 2, Informative

      TFA says $200 - $300. :)

    2. Re:Possibilities for embedded devices? by theeddie55 · · Score: 1

      that projector with something like http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/8193this, and some sort of mouse replacement, and you'd have all your IO needs on the go.
      Why even have a mouse, use the same technology as in the projected keyboard and you have a projected touch screen.
    3. Re:Possibilities for embedded devices? by edittard · · Score: 1

      But you'd need to be able to project your arm to use it.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    4. Re:Possibilities for embedded devices? by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      TFA says $200 - $300. :)

      Something tells me the TV manufacturers will buy this company out and sit on the invention... as it will directly clash with their very profitable flat screen market that they've just spent gajillions of dollars on ramping up capacity for...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    5. Re:Possibilities for embedded devices? by wolrahnaes · · Score: 1

      The resolution is terrible compared to a modern TV (or even standard projector), plus I'd imagine it won't be incredibly bright. Standard projectors are already heavily washed out by light, one that has a fraction of the brightness doesn't stand a chance as a TV.

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    6. Re:Possibilities for embedded devices? by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      It uses lasers not a bulb. I imagine it would be plenty bright.
      The resolution is the only problem and it'll probably increase over time.

      Rather neat tech actually. Cheap and simple.

    7. Re:Possibilities for embedded devices? by dafz1 · · Score: 1

      The resolution is the same as "standard" 480P projectors. However, "standard" 480P projectors are 2.5 to 5x more expensive, if Microvision can hit the $200 price point.

    8. Re:Possibilities for embedded devices? by GrievousMistake · · Score: 1

      Ultraportable and cheaper than a normal projector? That price sounds too good to be true. I'd buy one, and use it as a secondary screen at home when I'm not carrying it around.
      I wonder if they could make a better one (higher resolution/clearer picture/cheaper) if they didn't have to worry about the size and power draw?
      I'll predict severe last-minute delays and at least triple the given price, just for pessimism's sake.

      --
      In a fair world, refrigerators would make electricity.
    9. Re:Possibilities for embedded devices? by hey! · · Score: 1

      OK, why not eye tracking? Just glance where you want to click, then click a fixed button to activate on screen buttons or menus. It wouldn't work for drawing, of course, but it would be extremely fast for the most common mouse operations.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:Possibilities for embedded devices? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      The thing is, standard TV manufacturers have a product that's different. It takes some setup and space to use a projector as a television, and it really helps if you own your own place so you can set up a proper wall or screen to get a good picture out of a projector, whereas an HD flat-screen is easily moved, placed wherever you want, and often has many, many inputs on it, that this little thing obviously doesn't.

      I'd hope that the manufacturer sees the potential of an LED or laser based display system as far as noise, heat and maintenance requirements as compared to traditional projectors, and improves the design so they can take over the projector market as a whole. Don't forget, you can get a projector for about the same as a flat-panel TV, and people still buy "normal" TV's. They aren't going anywhere.

    11. Re:Possibilities for embedded devices? by wolrahnaes · · Score: 1

      Have you looked at 480p projectors recently? They can be had for practically the cost of a bulb. As they were phasing out the model, Infocus offered the wonderful SP4805 for as low as $299 refurbished with a bulb, where the bulb alone ran around $270. Since bulb costs haven't been dropping notably, 480p models are all but disposable anymore. When the bulb blows, just spend the extra $30-70 to get a new or refurbed model with a warranty rather than replacing the bulb in your old one.

      2.5-5x $200 is not at all realistic. A good 480p model with nice scalers and a full array of inputs _might_ be worth $500 brand new, but no one in their right mind would pay more than that, especially not up to $1000, for something as crappy as 480p.

      Hell, 720p DLP models are in the $600-800 range now brand new (Acer PH530 and its higher quality cousin the Optoma HD70, the second of which can be had out the door at a brick and mortar store for under $1000). LCD models are even cheaper, though with three digit DLP prices for models with high-speed multi segment color wheels I have no idea why anyone except the most sensitive to rainbows would bother with LCD below the 1080p market where DLPs are still a fair bit more expensive.

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    12. Re:Possibilities for embedded devices? by marcansoft · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you got the associatuon that laser means bright, but that's definitely not the case. Lasers LOOK bright because all of the energy is concentrated on a point: if you point the dot at a wall, it will be about as bright as any LED placed at that spot on the wall. If you point it at your eye, it's like shoving an LED up your cornea, with the added fact that it tends to focus to one point in your retina. Lasers concentrate their light in a very different way from a regular bulb, so they may look "bright", but in terms of light output they really aren't. When you scan an image on a wall and spread that tiny dot into an area of several square feet, it ceases to be "bright".

    13. Re:Possibilities for embedded devices? by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Tell me whats different between the laser projector and a CRT.

      Its not spreading the light over the entire area.
      Its scanning giving full intensity to a small area for a fraction of a second.
      Our eyes do all the hard work for it.

    14. Re:Possibilities for embedded devices? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      My Cellphone (Nokia N95) has tv outputs, and can play back a powerpoint presentation or a PDF file presentation.

    15. Re:Possibilities for embedded devices? by marcansoft · · Score: 1

      PWM is more efficient than constant power (which is why pulsed lasers are popular), since our eyes tend to perceive a higher brightness with PWM for the same amount of light, and scanning is similar to this, but this only works to a certain point. In a CRT, the phosphor on the screen does the hard work of keeping scanned pixels emitting light after they're hit. CRTs are also smaller than a projected screen, and involve totally different technology with totally different power limits. High-powered laser diodes are expensive and very dangerous in case of a malfunction.

    16. Re:Possibilities for embedded devices? by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Yeah but as long as they are scanning the laser fast enough, there is no reason why it cannot be bright.

    17. Re:Possibilities for embedded devices? by marcansoft · · Score: 1

      That's not how it works. The efficiency goes up as you increase the speed for a while, and then it goes down again. Your eyes aren't magic, after you pass a certain speed it all just looks like an average to them and your efficiency goes back down.

  11. Maybe smaller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's another projector called the Explay Oio that looks smaller: http://www.mobilewhack.com/explay-oio-the-first-real-pocket-nano-projector-on-dispaly-at-sid-2007/

    1. Re:Maybe smaller by doti · · Score: 1

      not only smaller, but 9 months earlier.

      --
      factor 966971: 966971
    2. Re:Maybe smaller by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      Or even earlier from the olden days of mid 2006, Mitsubishi's PK20 PocketProjector.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    3. Re:Maybe smaller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The PK20 is not a led/laser based projector. It's just a smaller projector with a bulb.

      Tom

    4. Re:Maybe smaller by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the earlier one(site is blocked by my work's firewall), but the PK20 is a miniaturized standard projecter - the SHOW uses a currently unique display method.

      The SHOW looks to be a bit bigger than an Ipod, while the PK20 is 4x5x2", much larger. Probably dimmer as well, as it's only 25 ANSI lumens(and the next smallest I remember off the top of my head was 800). Oh, and don't forget that the SHOW also contains a battery sufficient for an hour or two's usage.

      Personally, I'd like to see a slightly larger SHOW - drop the batteries, up the resolution to 1080i/p* levels, up the power on the lasers a bit**, provide a standard power slot and interface set(or adapter cables).

      Bonus: You'd be able to advertise them as energy star and probably sell boatloads of them to various green companies.

      Another thought I had on this is that it gets rid of the whole 'native resolution' issue with LCD/DLP projectors, and, unlike monitors, would be able to 'natively' display both 4:3 and 16:9 screen widths as long as the laser can reach.

      *Given that this is a scanning technology much like CRTs, interlaced might actually make sense.
      **Probably have to add some safety circuitry to make sure the lasers move fast enough to prevent eye damage, and if they can't move, that they shut down.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    5. Re:Maybe smaller by prelelat · · Score: 1

      It does look smaller but I think it is using normal lamps and such instead of lasers. From what I understood the lasers gave the SHOW a few extra features that a projector couldn't, as well as being small.

    6. Re:Maybe smaller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The actual projector component on the SHOW is the white/grey block with the orange ribbons sticking out, and the rest of the space is taken by the battery. I think the SHOW looks slightly smaller if you take that into account.

  12. Would be great for multi touch touchscreen by mrjb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Lately I've been giving some thought about how the hard part of multi-touch touch panel is the projection. Such a screen can be built from a sheet of glass+webcam, but the problem is that projecting an image back onto it requires a rather expensive projector. A $200-$300 laser projector would take this into the realm of 'affordable' technology.

    It could also render the OLED technology of the 'optimus maximus' keyboard obsolete- many people have a second VGA port that they do not use. Using this port to display a key map onto an essentially transparent keyboard would do the same. It could also allow people to choose the decoration to be displayed on the rest of their keyboard.

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    1. Re:Would be great for multi touch touchscreen by apt142 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      At $200-$300 my first thought was, could this replace my TV set? I'd just need a tuner, which I could get for my computer. It sure would be nice to reduce all of my entertainment equipment to one computer, a speaker system and an iPod sized projector.

      The resolution isn't what I would like, especially if I wanted to hook it up to my computer. But, I'm sure that'll improve in future versions.

    2. Re:Would be great for multi touch touchscreen by cnettel · · Score: 1

      What height are you imagining for a keyboard to support back-projection?

    3. Re:Would be great for multi touch touchscreen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not if you watch TV with any ambient light (lights on, curtains open etc.) I am a big fan of projectors, but since they rely on reflection rather than projection their picture gets washed out by ambient light.

    4. Re:Would be great for multi touch touchscreen by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Using this port to display a key map onto an essentially transparent keyboard would do the same.

      You could also just put a single LCD panel behind the keys, and create the keys from something like ulexite that makes the image from the LCD appear as if it is on the surface of the key. That would avoid the need for any lenses or mirrors related to the projection. It would be a little tricky to hide the springs, but I'm sure a couple at the edges could replace the single spring in the center on a standard keyboard.
      I believe the Optimus team was already working on something kind of like that anyway. The last time I looked at their site, they had what was basically and LCD touch screen with a plastic frame over it to divide the surface into a grid of "buttons". No tactile response with that though.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    5. Re:Would be great for multi touch touchscreen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WiFi or Bluetooth? That makes the wiring problem (other than power) for thing a moot point. Also sounds like a real neat option for home entertainment systems. At that size, the hiding or mounting options are nearly endless. Not to mention that it supposedly doesn't get as hot as a bulb projector, so you could locate it anywhere without worrying about overheating and the bonus of not having any annoying fan noise. Just need to get a decent projector screen. I wonder how much the screens that retract into the ceiling cost?

      Also with no lens to focus, this brings about another idea... Have two of them offset side by side projecting onto a hemispheric or parabolic screen that has some kind of fresnel coating applied to it. Then you could have a holovision or whatever.

  13. Now it's the screen's turn by DeathElk · · Score: 1

    Very cool indeed. Now where can we go with screen tech? Water vapour? Smoke screen? How about the in between thumb/forefinger thing I've seen in some futuristic shows? Instant on with a hand gesture.

  14. This Isn't Going to be Good for the Community by matty619 · · Score: 5, Funny

    And just think, by simply using 50 mW lasers, it will now be possible for the masses to skywrite commercials on the cloud cover. Or at the very least, everyone can have their own Bat Signal Device. Or project a 500' Goatse on a downtown sky scraper. I don't see how this can possibly go wrong. -M@

    1. Re:This Isn't Going to be Good for the Community by Idiot+with+a+gun · · Score: 1

      I can see the competitions for who can goatse the most people getting considerably more intense in the next few months.

    2. Re:This Isn't Going to be Good for the Community by DigitAl56K · · Score: 1

      That projector is going to need an impressive resizing algorithm in order to downscale goatse to 500 feet in real time.

    3. Re:This Isn't Going to be Good for the Community by jacquesm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think your power calculations for skywriting are off by several orders of magnitude. That sort of laser is best not used near anything combustible either, not unless you want it to combust that is :)

      A friend of mine who pioneered lasers in pop music (for Genesis in the Peter Gabriel days) once turned down a proposal to implement this because of the limited range of conditions when it would operate and the enormous power levels required, it's a bit of a difference to project something on a wall 5' away from you vs on a semi-transparant medium several hundred meters away. Of course you don't need to take my word for it, or you may have meant your original post in a sarcastic way (but that's hard to tell here sometimes).

      a 50 mW laser will carray a good distance as long as you don't start scanning it, then it quickly becomes useless.

    4. Re:This Isn't Going to be Good for the Community by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Wasn't there a recent article about a couple being tried with a crime with a maximum 5 year sentence and some huge fines for shining a laser into the sky (albeit at a helicopter pilot)? I'm guessing even if people could easily project shit onto clouds, these sorts of consequences would keep it in check.

    5. Re:This Isn't Going to be Good for the Community by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Informative

      for shining a laser into the sky (albeit at a helicopter pilot)

      no albeit about it, pointing a laser into the sky isn't a crime, pointing one at an aircraft(much less the pilot) is a felony.

      So holding a laser light show into the sky is fine as long as you're not below a regular flight lane. If you're doing a high power laser light show, contacting the FAA might be a good idea.

      Relatively high powered lasers are used for star gazing fairly frequently - it allows a director to point stuff out, as the laser is powerful enough to be seen via atmospheric interactions.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    6. Re:This Isn't Going to be Good for the Community by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The lasers from this thing won't be any more dangerous to something combustible than a similarly (read very low) powered standard projector. Unless they stop scanning, that is.

      I'm waiting for the 200 mW home theatre version.

    7. Re:This Isn't Going to be Good for the Community by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      I meant for one that will do skywriting, but that was too ambiguous, apologies.

    8. Re:This Isn't Going to be Good for the Community by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you could have some fun with one of those. Just make sure there aren't any airplanes around before you do your writing. If they get jumpy when a little laser pointer shines into the cockpit....

    9. Re:This Isn't Going to be Good for the Community by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but you could develop a whole new kind of goatseing. Imagine some guy is innocently stand infront of a wall, then BAM! he's in the middle of Goatse guy's asshole, eberyone turns and looks at him, and you shout out, "Goatsed!". Complete and total pwnage.

    10. Re:This Isn't Going to be Good for the Community by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      The biggest visible light laser that I've seen at work was about 3W with all the optics freshly cleaned and that's already pretty scary, it was quite an oldie (and it has died since) here is a picture of what it's output looked like when it was still operational:

      http://www.jeffrey-shaw.net/images/048_004.jpg

      Ancient picture, sorry for the quality. This is before it moved to it's last resting place at my friend Theo's house.

      This is the handheld device that Theo built for the Genesis tour, Peter Gabriel would hold it much like a microphone and paint fans of light all over the concert hall.

      http://www.jeffrey-shaw.net/images/048_002.jpg

      These images are all from Jeffrey Shaw's website, he's an artist that was born in Australia and lived in the Netherlands for a long time. Theo and him did a lot of pretty awesome stuff, Jeffrey being the artistic type and Theo an amazing engineer and designer.

      I'd hate to think what you could do with a bigger one...

    11. Re:This Isn't Going to be Good for the Community by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what it's wattage was, but I know a science centre that had a big laser. They entertained the audience by drilling holes through fire bricks with it.

      When I was a kid I remember a light show at the Columbia Dam. They painted pictures on the dam from across the lake. I didn't get a close look at those though.

  15. *gasp*gasp* by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 2, Funny

    I, too, seem, to, be, having, an, asthma, attack.


    On a serious not, I, too, welcome our media-infringing*, entertainment-system, goatse-projecting (don't look into laser with remaining sanity), toothy, overlords.

    *do I recall something about needing to pay a fee for having a large enough (practically theater sized) entertainment setup?

    --
    Just -1, Troll talking to another.
    1. Re:*gasp*gasp* by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "On a serious not, I, too, welcome our media-infringing*, entertainment-system, goatse-projecting (don't look into laser with remaining sanity), toothy, overlords. "

      Not only that, we now truly have porn anywhere you want now....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  16. MEMS vs Holographs by aphxtwn · · Score: 3, Informative

    Last year a different company made news demonstrating a monochrome version of their pico laser projector (PVPro) last year. They used LCoS to generate diffraction patterns rather than using a MEM mirror. http://www.lightblueoptics.com/

    1. Re:MEMS vs Holographs by morcheeba · · Score: 1

      LCoS would be much cheaper than MEMs, and, since it doesn't require a hermetic package, would be smaller, too.

  17. wow by delvsional · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Three hours, 40 minutes and no posts?

    --
    Oh Crap, I'm an optimist.....
    1. Re:wow by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 1

      Three hours, 40 minutes and no posts?
      The refresh button helps. :)
      --
      Just -1, Troll talking to another.
  18. Finger mouse... by ConanG · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Finger mouse... by ZJVavrek · · Score: 1

      Awesome, I wasn't sure they really existed. I need to remember this discussion next time I inform someone that we're in the 21st Century now.

    2. Re:Finger mouse... by GrievousMistake · · Score: 1

      Video of a similar but non-wireless device in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAR89kweEis
      It looks a bit awkward to use, and not that much smaller than a regular portable mouse.
      I think I'd rather have a flatter disc/crescent-shaped mouse that I could operate by resting my fingertips on, or a touchscreen, which should be possible by coupling the projector with one or several cameras.

      --
      In a fair world, refrigerators would make electricity.
  19. Eats, Shoots & Leaves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It uses, lasers to project the image. Eats, Shoots & Leaves?
  20. What's the brightness on it? by MSRedfox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I own a PK20 pocket projector. It fits in the palm of my hand, does 800x600 native, and uses ultra-bright LEDs with DLP tech to handle the images. It gets 10,000 hours of lamp life but is fairly dim as a result. It is much brighter then the first gen, PK10, but it still gets washed out easily. In a lightly lit room, I can do a 40" image, and in pitch darkness(or almost black), I can project around 60-70" without issue. I'm curious how the brightness of the lasers will be. Will it be able to project a 5' image in a lit room, or will it need the lights fully dimmed? I also wonder what the viewing angle will be, will it be very narrow with a fast drop off to the sides (which would make it less then ideal for portable presentations). Does anyone have any actual specs on the unit?

    1. Re:What's the brightness on it? by owlstead · · Score: 1

      The only thing on the brightness I could find was this snippet:

      "In the demo at Digital Experience, PicoP cast a vibrant image of Disney's Finding Nemo on a common piece of 8.5-by-11-inch white paper. The image was clear, but the amount of light in the large conference hall did not offer an optimal viewing environment."

      Yes, yes, I know, clicking on a link within the article *and* reading to the end of that article is not considered fair within the slashdot crowd :)

    2. Re:What's the brightness on it? by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

      "In the demo at Digital Experience, PicoP cast a vibrant image of Disney's Finding Nemo on a common piece of 8.5-by-11-inch white paper. The image was clear, but the amount of light in the large conference hall did not offer an optimal viewing environment."

      Just wait until the MPAA gets word of this. What are the chances PicoP had a public performance licence for Finding Nemo? The company will be sued into bankruptcy before the product gets anywhere near market.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    3. Re:What's the brightness on it? by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1

      I also wonder what the viewing angle will be, will it be very narrow with a fast drop off to the sides (which would make it less then ideal for portable presentations). Does anyone have any actual specs on the unit?
      Doesn't that depend on the projection screen?
      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    4. Re:What's the brightness on it? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Why yes it does. Viewing angle should be similar to viewing a painted wall - the perceived narrowing of the image would be a problem long before not seeing the light would be. Have a translucent screen and you'd be able to have rear projection.

      As for power - it doesn't sound bad. If it's anything like many other conventions I've been to - the ambient light level could be described as 'as bright or brighter than outdoors at noon'. If it's still capable of projecting a 'vibrant' image on an 8.5x11" piece of paper, I'd consider that sufficient for a small projector - in a dim room you'd probably be able to project a ~30" image without trouble, and in a dark room ~40-50" wouldn't be out of reach.

      They might also have kicked the power up a bit on the laser diodes for the newest model.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  21. Cell phones will have these! by MindPrison · · Score: 4, Funny

    No doubt!

    Personally I cant wait - this is TOO much fun, imagine the on-the-fly presentations you can do with this baby, no longer youll have to wave everyone over to your microscopic cell-phone screen to say "watch what I did this weekend".

    Oh wait...

    Thats not good...

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  22. I bet the image is horrible by Joce640k · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I don't see how a scanning laser beam can produce a watchable image.

    It'll be a cool toy, sure, but nothing more...

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:I bet the image is horrible by fatphil · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it's fine as long as you aim it at a long-persistence phosphor wall.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    2. Re:I bet the image is horrible by awol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, those scanning electron beams suck so much, the laser has got to suck too. Right??

      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
    3. Re:I bet the image is horrible by HateBreeder · · Score: 1

      It's actually more like, 3 different colored scanning laser beams.

      And if they "Scan" fast enough, you might not be able to notice they scan at all with the naked eye.

      --
      Sigs are for the weak.
    4. Re:I bet the image is horrible by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 1

      http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,1205,l=222480&s=27845&a=222482&po=2,00.asp The article gives its resolution as 848x480, which is on par with most consumer model projectors. I don't know what the refresh rate is, but the image in the photo looks perfectly watchable. It's quite possible that it'll be flicker-riffic and headache inducing, but as far as image quality goes, it looks fine.

    5. Re:I bet the image is horrible by wjsteele · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I built a scanning laser projector that can easily update 60 times per second. It wasn't using MEMS either, which are smaller and much faster, but it was using Galvos.

      Considering your eyes work at around 24 frames per second, I'd say it was acceptable. (TV and Computer monitors run at 60fps as well.)

      Now that I think about it, DLP Televisions are using MEMS devices with an array of mirrors that move just as fast... and I've never heard complaints about their refresh rate.

      Bill

      --
      It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
    6. Re:I bet the image is horrible by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Just so you know, human eyes don't 'work' at any specific fps.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    7. Re:I bet the image is horrible by Idiot+with+a+gun · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how safe it'd be to have open walls of phosphor around, in contact with the air.

    8. Re:I bet the image is horrible by tgd · · Score: 2

      The scanning electron beam is exciting phosphors that continue to glow long after the beam has passed by.

      With a laser on a standard surface, it has to be bright enough to overwhelm the receptors in your eye so your eye still thinks it sees it until the beam gets back to that spot again.

      Not even remotely similar.

    9. Re:I bet the image is horrible by wjsteele · · Score: 1

      We've done a lot of studies with the human eye's ability to perceive change. And you are correct that they don't run at a certain clock speed, however, they can not discern anything above an average of 20 to 24 frame per second.

      We actually found a few things quite interesting, that in some instances the eye can actually miss a change if it happens too quickly. LED taillights on cars were a problem when they were first being developed because they were turning on too quickly. Some drivers missed that they actually activated. Slowing down the light to simulate the "heat up" of an incandesant bulb fixed it. Then we played around with speeding it back up to the fastest detectable speed. They now appear to turn on instantly, but in reality, they're not, there is a small build up.

      Bill

      --
      It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
    10. Re:I bet the image is horrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Not even remotely similar."

      Of course it is.

      You're replacing the phosphor with the eye's persistence of vision. It takes very little light to trigger the persistence of vision, you just don't notice it most of the time.

    11. Re:I bet the image is horrible by myz24 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I dislike LED brake lights because they appear to flicker. I also see rainbows on 4x DLP projectors. Do I have superman eyes?

    12. Re:I bet the image is horrible by jdjbuffalo · · Score: 1

      If we can't perceive anything faster than 24 FPS then tell me why I can tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS in a game?

      --
      We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
    13. Re:I bet the image is horrible by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I don't see how a scanning laser beam can produce a watchable image.

      By persistence of vision

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    14. Re:I bet the image is horrible by roscivs · · Score: 1

      If we can't perceive anything faster than 24 FPS then tell me why I can tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS in a game?
      http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
      --
      ~ roscivs
    15. Re:I bet the image is horrible by jdjbuffalo · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link. It explained a lot of stuff I didn't know about FPS and how our eye's work in the light.

      However, I wish it was more scientific method for the reasons why see the way we do.

      Also it wasn't able to answer the question of how many FPS does it really take to so that it's not noticeable. Oh well...

      --
      We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
    16. Re:I bet the image is horrible by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      The ratio of on:off for a scanning VGA resolution dot is 1:300000. Persistence of vision only goes so far....

      Let's face it, if this thing was any good they wouldn't be selling it for $300.

      --
      No sig today...
    17. Re:I bet the image is horrible by HateBreeder · · Score: 1

      How does the mentioned (1:300000) ratio relate to persistence of vision?

      This ratio is completely avoid of units. it does not specify a period of time or power.
      The persistance of vision on the other hand, is all about time and power.
      For the sake of making a point, I can be toggling that "on and off" dot at the above mentioned ratio at 1MHz.
      I would indeed, have to build a scanning device that scans at 30G Dots per Second, but non-the-less, I would have turned that led "on" a Million times per second!
      So the eye would need to remember the led was on for only a millionth of a second - before i would refresh the memory.
      Now, the human eye can notice about 24fps - therefore, you can remember any lit-dot for about, 30mSecs >> 1usec.
      so the fact is, that i could probably manage with even a 1MHz scanning device.

      And the price shows that the product is aimed for mass consumer markets. not that it's bad.
      Is your $300 iPod crap?

      --
      Sigs are for the weak.
    18. Re:I bet the image is horrible by roscivs · · Score: 1

      Also it wasn't able to answer the question of how many FPS does it really take to so that it's not noticeable.
      I think that's because nobody knows, the GP's claim of 24fps notwithstanding. :) Like you said, oh well ...
      --
      ~ roscivs
  23. Sweet by Silkejr · · Score: 1

    Between this and my EEE PC, I'll be able to do some very interesting things..

    1. Re:Sweet by IL-CSIXTY4 · · Score: 1

      Funny, when I saw the resolution on this thing (roughly 800z480), my first thought was "EeePC".

  24. My *future* new favorite hobby by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bear With Me

    I just realized, half the fun of xkcd is sharing - it does help that there is a comic for EVERY occasion.

    --
    Just -1, Troll talking to another.
  25. New Tech saying by MosesJones · · Score: 1

    "See that? Its the world's smallest projector showing a blue screen of death just for you"

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  26. Good by DerWulf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Very cool product. The name sucks though. Google finds 2.560.000.000 hits for "SHOW".

    --

    ___
    No power in the 'verse can stop me
    1. Re:Good by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      I would have modded this insightful, rather than funny. If your product can't be found with a google search, you're making a big mistake. Heck, if you can't walk into a store and ask for it by name, you're making a bit mistake.

      Customer: I'd like to buy a SHOW.
      Best Buy: You'd what?
      Customer: A SHOW. Where are they?
      Best Buy: DVDs are over there. -points-
      Customer: No, a SHOW. It's a projector.
      Best Buy: TVs are over there. -points-

      On the other hand, if you ask for an iMac or Vista, or any other product with a distinctive name, you'll be led right to it with no confusion.

      I do have to give them credit, though... 'show projector' brings the right link up in Google as the first hit. How they managed this, I don't know.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  27. Why? by Atario · · Score: 1
    Why do projectors always lowball you on the resolution?

    uses tiny lasers to shoot a WVGA (848 by 480, roughly DVD resolution) image
    Come on. Isn't this the age of frickin' HD? Gimme 1920x1080, at least!
    --
    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    1. Re:Why? by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously asking why the first version of a budget projector is 'only' DVD resolution? Can you not figure that out for yourself?

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    2. Re:Why? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      It's also new technology. Which can also help explain the low resolution. While 'projector' might not be new, 'laser scan projector' is.

      Though I'll admit that one of my first thoughts was 'too bad it's not HD'.

      I figure that it shouldn't be too hard to make it HD - you'd just have to increase the speed and accuracy that the lasers can scan at(perhaps significantly).

      This is a tech where I'd expect to see 1080i before 1080p.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:Why? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Because it's a new type of technology in this projector?

  28. OMG ZOMG when can I play duck hunt with it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    OMG ZOMG when can I play duck hunt with it

  29. I Mis-read the headline by mrpacmanjel · · Score: 2, Funny

    For a brief moment I thought it said "World's Smallest Penis" !

    I thought "that's funny I didn't see a webcam in my bathroom this morning" !

  30. Diffraction patterns by Trogre · · Score: 1

    I don't see how a projector using coherent light can work without ugly speckle patterns in the image. Anyone have any ideas?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:Diffraction patterns by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      What causes that BTW? I noticed it when playing with a laser pointer that the spot seemed to have weird moving speckles in it. Couldn't find anything on the net about it at the time.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Diffraction patterns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The speckles are interference patterns in the light projected on your retina. You won't see them because the projector's mirror scans very quickly, so the interference patterns change too quickly for you to notice them.

    3. Re:Diffraction patterns by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia has a pretty good write-up about it.

      It seems I was wrong to use the term "diffraction pattern" in the subject line, as it has nothing to do with diffraction and more to do with interference in coherent light.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  31. 848 by 480 by DavidD_CA · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why don't these devices support normal resolutions?

    If they are going through all that trouble to make a really cool tiny projector, can't they figure out how to make it support 1024x768 without resampling the image down?

    I realize that 848 by 480 is used by some video formats and is 16:9, but still. Anyone using this to show a lecture or demonstrate how to use a computer program is going to be disappointed.

    --
    -David
    1. Re:848 by 480 by IANAAC · · Score: 1

      I realize that 848 by 480 is used by some video formats and is 16:9, but still. Anyone using this to show a lecture or demonstrate how to use a computer program is going to be disappointed.

      Most of the new (or current, even) UMPCs coming out have 800x480 resolution standard, either on a 7" or 4.5" screen, My guess is that owners of those devices will be the target audience.

    2. Re:848 by 480 by old_skul · · Score: 1

      848x480 is standard, unscaled, DVD resolution. Imagine a pixel-perfect DVD screen. That's what this is. If you want 1024x768, wait for the (inevitable) business version.

    3. Re:848 by 480 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps their target audience is portable media players, not executives or geeks needing to do random presentations.
      You know, practical, moneymaking considerations.

    4. Re:848 by 480 by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Perhaps their target audience is portable media players, not executives or geeks needing to do random presentations.
      You know, practical, moneymaking considerations.


      With scanning mirrors capable of +- atan(0.5) deflection and fixed lasers, one per color, the resolution is largely a matter of clocking rate for the laser driver / video interfaces and relative amplitude selection for the vertical and horizontal mirror drivers. The biggest cost for higher resolution would be to increase the scanning speed of one dimension (probably horizontal) to handle the extra lines required.

      I don't really understand why they don't just make it capable of all the stock resolutions for computer monitors and also HDTV. B-(

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  32. Microvision releases PicoP projector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No wireless. Smaller than a nomad. Lame.

  33. Why do I get the feeling... by advocate_one · · Score: 2, Interesting
    that the MPAA are not going to be impressed with it...

    "It's a great for-use mode when it comes to spontaneously sharing content with your friends," said Russell Hannigan, Microvision's Director of Product Management for Consumer Projection Displays.

    and that they'll insist on it being DRM'd to death

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    1. Re:Why do I get the feeling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like how they'd insist that a monitor or any other viewable output device be DRM'd to death, eh?

    2. Re:Why do I get the feeling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Why do I get the feeling... by sco_is_for_babies · · Score: 1

      "the 21st century is finally here"

      Yes and you _can_ share content with your friends once they all get the the new lasiks procedure - officially MPAA sanctioned HDCP compliant retinal filters.

    4. Re:Why do I get the feeling... by Cheesey · · Score: 1

      This must be why the company have called themselves Microvision. The MPAA is not afraid of their eternal allies at Macrovision, the company that provides Orwellian "quality protection" by selling mandatory devices that degrade video signals. If everything goes to plan, the MPAA will assume the product is a new type of DRM and lobby Congress to force everyone to buy one.

      --
      >north
      You're an immobile computer, remember?
  34. Next "must have" for road warriors? by COMICAGOGO · · Score: 1

    I can see this being huge if the company can get a deal to add these to laptops. I would love to have a tiny projector built into my laptop. No more carrying around all those cords to hook up to someone else's TV/projector for a presentation.

    On the other hand I would not want to see an office meeting with 10+ of these. It's hard enough to get that many people to share one screen already, just imagine if they all had a projector to throw up their power point vomit with.

  35. Don't look into the beam? by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

    Link to the developer's site: http://www.microvision.com/pico_projector_displays/standalone.html

    Looks like they're pitching this as an accessory for mobile phones as well as mini stand-alone projos.

    A whole new world of mobile phone-related road accidents beckon...

    More positively, I've tried some cars with head-up displays, and they really work. Now if you had a GPS-enabled phone that could project driving instructions onto the screen in front of you...now, that would be cool. Trouble is, you'd probably end up being tempted to open another window and 'just try and do a couple of mails' whilst waiting for the green light.

  36. Lighter laptops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Much of the weight of a laptop is the screen. The screen is also a major battery drain. With this tiny projector it would be possible to build lighter laptops.

    Its battery lasts only an hour and a half but it is tiny. It sounds like the projector uses less energy than a regular laptop screen.

    Another possibility is that different size screens could be implemented. For handheld use, the screen could be tiny, only a few inches. For desktop use a larger screen could be folded out.

  37. zardoz...! by apodyopsis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    anybody remember that Sean Connery scifi flick Zardoz? An good well thought out plot and Charlotte Rampling's knockers could not save it from some hammed up acting and a general public with no intelligence. But one of the cooler points of the film was the rings that all the immortals wore - voice driven data interfaces to the central computer (called the tabernacle if memory serves me well..) and capable of projecting images, movies and information onto any nearby wall with perfect clarity.

    we now have projected keyboards, mini laser projectors and infra-red tracking - come on, lets build our own mini computers and dump those expensive power hungry boxes on our desks. if we could finally solve the porblem of mesh computing and get rid of the ISP monopolies then that would be fantastic as well, lets hope OLPC proves the concept viable..

    1. Re:zardoz...! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Yes, I do remember Zardoz, and I was going to comment on it but you beat me to it. When Connery was exploring the home of one of the Immortals and put on the ring, and the jewel glowed green projecting a computer display on the wall in front of him I was fascinated.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:zardoz...! by Invidious · · Score: 1

      Now we just need giant floating heads that vomit forth guns! I want a Webley!

  38. Microthis, Microthat by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 4, Funny

    What's up with all these companies from Redmond, Washington being called Microsomething? Is Microvision something that is needed to see Bill's Micro-soft?

  39. Please by Daimanta · · Score: 1

    Do not look into projector with remaining eye!

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  40. Christopher Walken, is that you? by pinkfloydhomer · · Score: 1

    You... never know.

  41. Which iPod? by RandoX · · Score: 1

    Call me when they get it down to the size of a shuffle.

    1. Re:Which iPod? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we don't care about you, mini mee.

  42. More interested in the laser technology by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sure, small is cool, but these laser projection systems seem better than LCD/Lens. Lower power, cooler, presumably no need to focus. And can easily be made quite portable at a higher resolution.

  43. Speccy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't this called the ZX Spectrum?

  44. ok now how long before by v1 · · Score: 1

    someone puts it in a laptop? That would make for an interesting board meeting, to put up a powerpoint in the whiteboard, at the point where someone realizes there's no projector in the board room.

    6 years ago no one would have believed it was possible, let alone practical, and certainly not affordable, to have a camera in their laptop lid. Now look what we have - around 50% of the laptops sold today have built-in web-cams. That makes a projector the next logical step.

    Get one of those bluetooth mice that logitec makes, the really small ones with the thumb operated trackball and built-in laser pointer and usual mouse buttons, and toss that in, and you have the ideal portable presentation system. (beats the "gather round the laptop screen" scenario)

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  45. Polarized Stereo (3D) TVs by Steve+Van+Loon · · Score: 1

    With laser based projection, I wonder if it's possible to produce polarized stereo TVs. If so, then getting an projection system would be about $700. The only problem I have with the World's Smallest Projector is the resolution. I'm hoping that soon the resolution will be HD quality.

    1. Re:Polarized Stereo (3D) TVs by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Is coherent light necessarily polarized the same?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  46. Cross-over by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Frickin' lasers! Now all we need is some sharks.

    Wrong. With such a small projector...all we need is a droid.


    The hologram of a beautiful mermaid appears :
    "Help me, Obi Whale Sharkobi ! You're my only hope !"....
    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  47. Once the beam has hit the screen by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    It won't be coherent any more and speckle shouldn't be much of a problem. You notice speckle with a beam that's fixed in space because you are getting diffraction patterns off dust motes. With a scanning beam, the energy being reflected or diffracted at any point in space is too small to worry about, except very close to the projector exit window, which you aren't looking at anyway.

    In fact something similar applies to a conventional projector; you can see the dust in the air quite clearly close to the beam exit, but it is not a problem when watching the screen.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  48. I WANT ONE! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    A project that can fit in your pocket, project a 848x480 image at virtually any distance, use so little power that it can run on batteries, not get hot to the touch, and costs less than $300?!?!? Are you kidding me!?!? This one is a no-brainner. This thing will sell like hotcakes if they can deliver on the promises.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  49. "24fps" is a myth.... by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The whole "24fps" thing was invented by Disney and it relates to smooth *movement*, not lack of flicker.

    Cinemas can get away with lower frame rates because film projectors have a duty cycle where each image stays in place for 90-odd percent of the time then they switch to the next frame as quickly as possible (this is why film projectors make a clattering noise - they jerk the film through the mechanism). This means that most of the time there's a solid image being projected.

    CRT monitors flicker a *lot* at 60Hz, and they've got persistence of image in the phosphor. To completely eliminate CRT flicker you have to go to 75Hz or more. Even then that only eliminates flicker in the center of vision, you can still see it in the corner of your eye where there's more rods than cones.

    With no persistence the human eye can see flicker well over 100Hz, maybe even as high as 150Hz.

    --
    No sig today...
  50. Rainbows on DLP projectors. by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, I see them as well, and so do many other people.

    Sorry.

    PS: DLP doesn't scan the image line by line, it projects the entire image all at once. This gives it a much wider duty cycle (ratio of "on" to "off") than a scanning laser beam. A wide duty cycle reduces flicker a *lot*, it's the only reason DLP projectors work at all.

    --
    No sig today...
  51. I have to say it.... by gravis777 · · Score: 1

    Redmond, Wash.-based Microvision is unveiling a full functioning, self-contained prototype

    Hannigan explained that SHOW is plug and play and should work with any video-out capable devices, including laptops, the iPod touch, and some phones. Hmmm, a Redmond-based company starting with the name "Micro" that makes a plug and play device (hmmm, Windows only possibly) that makes it easier to display a PowerPoint presentation. Any connection, I wonder?

    Seriously, though, if this was put into an iPhone, think how cool it could be... I could edit the presentation AND project it on my Cell Phone and then spend half an hour trying to upload it to the server afterwards over the Edge network so that others could look at it.
  52. the eye's persistence of vision... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    So how come I can see CRTs flicker at 60Hz? Surely my eye should be compensating!

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:the eye's persistence of vision... by prelelat · · Score: 1

      You can see a monitor flicker at 60Hz but can you see it at 85Hz? We have no idea what the refresh rate of this laser is. At least I didn't see anything suggesting that. I think you should hold judgment until you see it in action. I know I will, I worry about clarity, color, and brightness in this projector until I see it for myself. it seems people perceive things differently as well.

    2. Re:the eye's persistence of vision... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Would that be in an artificially lit room? You know, where everything is flickering around 60 Hz so you get beat frequencies? Can you see the 24 frames per second in a theatre?

    3. Re:the eye's persistence of vision... by IdeaMan · · Score: 1

      24 fps (*2 = 48hz) is awful. I get horrible scratchy bloodshot eyes from that flickerfest.
      60hz is easily visible in the center of my field of view, is annoying and causes some eyestrain.
      75hz is visible in my peripheral vision.
      85hz I can't detect.
      100hz+ seems solid, like a sheet of paper.

      I don't know if I just notice it more after playing 10 years of FPS's or if I was always that way.
      Oh and yes, that's in a room lit with incandescent lighting.

      --
      They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
    4. Re:the eye's persistence of vision... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Movies in a theatre are 24 fps. That is, 24 Hz. They're not interpolated. The majority of people aren't bothered by that. But maybe you shouldn't buy one of these projectors until they get up to 85 Hz, which really shouldn't be a problem.

    5. Re:the eye's persistence of vision... by IdeaMan · · Score: 1

      True, they're not interpolated (think you meant interlaced), however on a mechanical projector, it takes time to switch from one frame to the next.
      According to the Refresh rates entry in Wikipedia movies display each frame 2 or 3 times. This doubles or triples the refresh rate up to 48 or 72 hz, which is still visible to me.

      --
      They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
  53. I want that in a PDA. by argent · · Score: 1

    Combine that with the projection keyboard, and your PDA would turn into a laptop just by putting it on a table with a white wall behind it.

  54. colour from single wavelength lasers by mks113 · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering how you can get true colour from lasers. One of the defining characteristics of lasers is that they emit only a single wavelength. Even if you have true RGB lasers, will it be possible to truly get a yellow from G and B?

    1. Re:colour from single wavelength lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Human colour vision is based on three different kinds of colour sensitive cells. They cannot distinguish between green+blue or true yellow. This is why RGB displays are all over the place already, and it doesn't really matter what technology you use to produce the R, G and B components.

  55. $200-300? No. by Kalewa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The eeeeeeepc was supposed to be $200 too. That stupid OLED keyboard was supposed to be $500. I don't see this going for less than $600 by the time the bean counters get done with it. For $200-299 it's a toy, and everyone will buy one, but very few companies seem to understand that price point. I'll believe it when I see it.

  56. Helicopter by HandsOnFire · · Score: 1

    Or at the very least, everyone can have their own Bat Signal Device. Or project a 500' Goatse on a downtown sky scraper. I don't see how this can possibly go wrong.

    Or a device to point at helicopters!

  57. YES by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    You have only 3 effective color receptor types in your eye (I'm simplifying a bit, as there is a fourth sensor type but it is used in dim light.) Every color you see is determined by the relative extent to which the light affects each of those receptors. A broad-spectrum yellow light (again simplifying a bit) has a different effect on the "red" and "green" sensors - say it is red 50 units and green 60 units. By shining two lasers, a red and a green, at such intensities that they affect your red sensor by a total of 50 units and your green sensor by a total of 60 units, you create a light which you cannot distinguish by eye from yellow (though obviously you can see the difference easily with a prism or a diffraction grating.)

    There is a problem at the extreme ends of the spectrum, where both the red and the blue sensors are getting less sensitive, which means it is not possible to get the full range of visible colors from just three lasers without risking eye damage. But in truth you are not likely to notice the difference.

    In fact, it is better to use lasers or narrow-spectrum LEDS because they permit of more precise selective activation of the color sensors than is possible using filters over black body light sources.

    As a side note, owing to very small natural variations, everybody perceives color slightly differently from everybody else. In fact, one of my eyes sees slightly different colors from the other and this is not uncommon. We can ensure that output equipment produces a consistent color value, but we cannot ensure that everybody sees exactly what we do.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  58. Head mount display by skelly33 · · Score: 1

    Very cool - I've been dying to experiment with laser projection for years. I'm glad someone has the resources to actually pull it off. This technology makes the following scenario possible due to the lens-less infinite focus of the "ray casting": 1) mount laser projector to top helmet projecting forward image covering complete FOV 2) wear helmet on head 3) insert self into small, unlit dome with white interior projection surface 4) use head motion tracking to determine point of view then adjust projected 3D world to match 5) locate BFG9000 and engage target 6) ...? 7) Profit!

  59. anyone else thought ... by Y.T.G. · · Score: 1

    "Help me Obi Wan! You're my last hope ..."

  60. Big deal by Bobb+Sledd · · Score: 1

    Big deal. I saw McGuyver do it with a 9V battery, a white LED, part of his calculator watch, 2 paper clips, a piece of bubble gum (and its aluminum wrapper), and a magnifying glass, and it was HD.

    --
    "They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
  61. PWM Cadillac taillights by name_already_taken · · Score: 2, Informative

    I dislike LED brake lights because they appear to flicker.

    I see this most of all on Cadillacs, when the parking lights are on, but the brake lights are not - particularly if you turn your head while looking at the lights. The LEDs on Cadillacs apparently are dimmed by a PWM circuit that flashes the LEDs rapidly to simulate the lower brightness level. This is a totally inappropriate way of controlling the brightness of lights on a moving vehicle, because it makes for weird strobe-light effects in traffic, and it's actually more expensive and introduces more failure points than the alternative. It really makes Cadillacs look bad.

    The aftermarket LED lights used on heavy trucks do not flicker unless there is a bad connection somewhere. They are designed using the simplest method of dimming for the parking light function - a simple pair of diodes to isolate the brake and parking light inputs, and a resistor in line with the parking light input.

    Pretty much all LED third brake light (CHMSL) modules do not flicker at all as they generally have no dimming function and are either on or off. If you're seeing them flicker, you may be hallucinating.

    I also see rainbows on 4x DLP projectors. Do I have superman eyes?

    No, probably just a brain tumor.

    --
    Putting moderation advice in your .sig lowers your karma!
    1. Re:PWM Cadillac taillights by myz24 · · Score: 1

      Great, I've always wondered if I have a brain tumor and now /. confirms...damn you!

      And yes, it is Cadillacs that bug me when their lights on.

  62. The End of Plasma and LCD? by MOBE2001 · · Score: 1

    This thing will sell like hotcakes if they can deliver on the promises.

    Yeah, I want one too. Note that Mitsubishi is coming out with a laser projection TV based on this technology at CES, this month. By the way, Novalux is the company behind the technology. There's going to be both rear and front projection systems. And theater versions too. IMO, this is gonna be the end of LCD and plasma, and everything else. The next IPhone will have it, you can bet on it.

  63. youtube video of the PicoP in action by objekt · · Score: 1
    --
    -- Boycott Shell
  64. Special Screens by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

    Obviously there are going to be contrast issues when projecting in a well lit environment (as with normal projectors) but the narrow wavelength of the RGB lasers present opportunities for smarter screen designs. A screen that just reflects those narrow wavelengths rather than the whole spectrum could look quite dark until illuminated.

    1. Re:Special Screens by jhfry · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing. However I'm not sure how it could be accomplished in a way that would improve black levels. Ideally the screen would be as black as possible but still reflective of those colors.

      Perhaps an active projection screen could be done with electronic paper, the projection surface is black except where the laser is currently focused. The scanning laser and scanning screen would need to be synced and aligned, so it wouldn't be portable... but it would make front projection realistic in bright rooms, and knock the socks off any other front projection setup in a dark room as far as black levels and contrast are concerned.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    2. Re:Special Screens by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

      I remember a (probably slashdot) article were some company did precisely that kind of displaying surface, but right now I can't find the link.

      It was about one year ago.

      --
      We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
    3. Re:Special Screens by marciot · · Score: 1

      Been done. Here's an article about a "black" projection screen for daylight use:

            http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB108742977261939595-IRjg4Nllal3nZyva3qHbqyCm4.html

      And a picture:

            http://gizmodo.com/archives/better-picture-of-sonys-black-backed-projection-screen-016964.php

      More googling revealed these are now sold under the ChromaView brand. Check out the price on that puppy:

            http://www.tvcity.tv/productview.aspx?ID=1274

      -- Marcio

    4. Re:Special Screens by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

      It would seem there is a gap in the market for screens that are not idiotically priced.

  65. WTF no HD?!? (Re:now that is progress) by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

    Nice concept for portability and low energy, but it needs to be updated to modern video resolutions. One year from now, just about everyone in their target market will have an HD flat panel (or multiple) and the output of this thing will look like crap by comparison. On the other hand, that's what they said about the Wii...a year ago.

    Seriously, though. If you want to share video in a public place like a bus or a mall, you aren't going to project it on a surface anyone can see it on. You'd probably get arrested for not having a permit or sued for a copyright-infringing public presentation.

    And if you want to do a projection in a slightly less public venue (say a friend's family room or a client's conference room), you'd expect better resolution. The product is too gadget-ty to attract the low-tech end of the mainstream and too low-res to attract the high-tech end. Maybe a market for a year or so until analog TV gets canned, then a narrowing market segment as DVD players phase out for HD (pick your format) and it becomes the lowest-res thing on the market.

    --
    We are the 198 proof..
  66. ED IS THE TRUE PATH TO NIRVANA!! by tm2b · · Score: 2, Interesting
    --
    "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
  67. Thanks since 2003 by earlymon · · Score: 1
    --
    Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
  68. new iphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be awesome. An iphone with a built in mini projector, and one of those lazer keyboards. all in one unit.
    That WOULD be 21st. century my friend.

    You really would look like a mad wizard pinching the air with both fingers as you wave through the apple touch interface.
    And amazingly all the technology is here NOW.

    I'd go ant patent the idea but I'd say 1,843,063 people have already beaten me to it!! : >

  69. You won't have to wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this tech. is here NOW and with the way Apple are innovating, it shouldn'r be long before you get it.
    You mentioned a mouse. That wouldn't be needed. It just happens that the keyboard device you mentioned could easily be modified
    to be manipulated in the same way as ipod touch. Why would you ever need something so obsolete as a mouse.

    Think mini projector+iphone+lazer keyboard all in one. Ahh, throw GPS and mp3 and movies too : >

    Only thing is, I hope the companies who show innovation like Apple, Microvision etc reep the benefits.

    Not, copy-cat companies like Samsung etc. tha will just rip off the tech and find a way to make it cheeper, slimmer and more efficient. That would be too bad. Hope they DRM the shit out of it!! :>

  70. Great, just great by Vexor · · Score: 1

    now some twit is going to be overlaying pr0n at the movie theater instead of a small red dot.

    --
    ~Vexed and loving it!
  71. The future of laptops? by anilg · · Score: 1

    Could this be the future of laptops? Just add a tiny camera somewhere and project the image of a keyboard on the other side, and read motion of fingers over the camera. This may seem far fetched, but all the required technology is already available. Finally full blown computers you can carry in your pocket without giving up on the big display and input. Heck we might do away with the touchpad and manage better UI input.

    --
    http://dilemma.gulecha.org - My philospohical short film.
  72. Movies are different by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    24fps movies don't flicker because the projector lamp is on for 100% of the time. All that changes is the image, not the brightness.

    Scanning a dot of light across a wall (or CRT) is a completely different situation.

    --
    No sig today...
  73. 85Hz is also relative by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    The persistance of phosphor is tweakable. I've used perfectly flicker free 60Hz monitors (eg. the old SGI machines) because the monitors were designed for a single display resolution/frequency (1280x1024@60Hz).

    Modern PC monitors have less persistence because they have to work at many different resolutions/frequencies. This needs different phosphors and the refresh rate has to go up.

    --
    No sig today...
  74. Yea I Mis-read the headline too... by wilec · · Score: 1

    Made me think of some sensors I installed a while back that shipped with what looked like "The Worlds Smallest (Penis) Protector" rolled onto the inlet ports(about .25in). I had a bit of fun with them at work for a day or two. What is really sad is what I saw first was "The Worlds Smallest Protractor", "huh?" I said, to myself of course. Damn I can be such a frackin' geek, damn I did it again. I'll just shut up now...

    Wabi-Sabi
    Matthew

  75. Don't compare CRTs to what the eye can do by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    > "60hz is easily visible .... 85hz I can't detect."

    This is NOT a function of the eye

    I've used high resolution monitors which were perfectly flicker free at 60Hz, I could also make a monitor which flickers at 100Hz. This is a function of the persistence of the screen phosphor, not a function of the human eye.

    Scanning a laser beam across a wall (ie. the projector) is nothing like scanning an electron beam across some phosphor.

    --
    No sig today...
  76. Just a little further... by Ninwa · · Score: 1

    The technology needs to go just a little further and become just a little smaller, and then perhaps it might be feasible in an invisibility suit spec?

  77. New video of the SHOW projector in action! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.king5.com/video/featured-index.html?nvid=205525
    very cool! The quality is surprisingly good.. and the infinite focus is pretty neat. I see that it is connected directly to an IPOD... I wonder what kind of cable is necessary for this....
    For $200-$300 later this year.. I can't wait to try it out!