Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Engineers Invent Displays That Top LCDs For Efficiency
MechEMark writes with this excerpt from a hope-inspiring article at the IEEE Spectrum, which says "Researchers from Microsoft say they've built a prototype of a display screen using a technology that essentially mimics the optics in a telescope but at the scale of individual display pixels. The result is a display that is faster and more energy efficient than a liquid crystal display, or LCD, according to research reported yesterday in Nature Photonics ... The design greatly increases the amount of backlight that reaches the screen. The researchers were able to get about 36 percent of the backlight out of a pixel, more than three times as much light as an LCD can deliver. But Microsoft senior research engineer Michael Sinclair says that through design improvements, he expects that number to go up — theoretically, as high as 75 percent."
The only colour plane that works right now is blue.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Every time I hear about the great research that MS does I think about how great it is that they are putting their money into these IT projects. Then I stop and think "wait a minute, will this only work on Windows?"
Well it seems obvious to me that a display technology should not be impacted by an OS but then my more synical nature takes over and asks if there is SOMEHOW a way that they could make this a Windows only thing.
Well is it possible?
http://projectleader.wordpress.com
Aren't OLED displays already a lot more efficient?
-- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
OLEDs and SEDs have many advantages over LCD (the big disadvantage being that they're not mass-produced cheaply currently: OLEDs are produced but they're not cheap)..
So I'm not very excited about a technology which only cuts the power consumption of LCDs..
And that's uselessly low.
It's easy to make an LCD more efficient, just block less light. The problem is that the contrast ratio is the difference between the least amount of light you can block and the most you can block. They've just basically made a system that isn't capable of blocking much light and so it's brighter. But at the expense of the contrast ratio.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
I always said that Microsoft was pretty good as a hardware company.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
That's one reason it gets such good battery life. It uses the magic of diffraction gratings to use nearly all the light that it receives. I read that the creator of the screen is in the process of commercializing it, and I can't wait for it to get into the world of readily-available products.
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
...is the faster switching speed. Considering this prototype has a ~1ms switching time, and LED backlights are already popular, it may be feasible to create, in effect, a flat panel DLP display by rapidly cycling the backlight color.
Current flat panel displays have three sub-pixels in every pixel. One only allows red light, one blue, and one green. It's very inefficient: You need three LCD elements to display each pixel, and two-thirds of the backlight is blocked outright by the color filters.
With a color-cycling display, every element displays every color in turn, so (all else being equal) you triple the resolution *and* the efficiency.
The only downside is a possible rainbow effect if the display does not cycle colors quickly enough.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
I guess I'm looking at this from a different point of view from most of the comments so far. I read the article, and I'm thinking "Wow! What a cool new way of attacking an old problem!" It's a brand new technology, I don't expect it to be immediately better than decades old technology overnight. I just like the new technique and the micro-scale optics. Then again, I am studying optics in graduate school so I might be a bit biased...
Anna Pyayt led the research as part of her Ph.D. thesis at the University of Washington in collaboration with two Microsoft engineers. Microsoft funded the work and has also applied for a patent on the technology.
See, they may not manufacture it themselves, but they'll certainly be getting license fees for each unit sold...
They need something to make up for their lack of Vista sales.
Who knows, maybe the display will incorporate a TCPA/Palladium chip, so a licensed OS will be required also.
e.g. For an OS to be able to display something on this type of the monitor, the OS vendor must license the patent and pay the fee
And support the TCPA specs.
What better way to push Vista than to make the hardware explicitly require it? XP doesn't support the advanced DRM required for the more modern lines of efficient displays (which will eventually be mandated by law, just like laws will eventually be passed banning traditional lightbulbs).
this has already been posted :(
It was done by a student, the Microsoft engineers were probably taking notes ;-) business as usual.
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
I can even think of two ways to block Linux.
If you can too, SHUT UP ABOUT IT!
unlikey for three reasons 1.) rainbow effect only exists in ("slow") single chip DLP's because, only one color is on at any given time. 2.) the mirrors don't spin and reflect per say, they bend to focus. 3.) the switching time is fast- 600fps fast- so even if they're were rainbows which they're shouldn't be, you wouldn't be able to see them because it is so far above the flicker fusion threshhold.
Damn, I've got mod points and there's no "-1, Wrong"
That means that Microsoft has, for the very first time, invented something useful.
No, please, I'm dead serious about this !
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
... quickly bash them, before they do anything good.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
If this really works like a telescope, then wouldn't that mean the display would have a very low viewable angle? After all, a telescope is just a telephoto lens. And telephoto lenses have a narrow field-of-view.
So, you'd probably have to look directly at the display from a perpendicular angle. Move a little to the side, and you're going to lose the image altogether, or have it severely degraded. LCDs are already bad enough in this respect.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Red Colour Hue on MVLB Displays
Some users have noticed a slight rosy color hue on their new Microsoft(TM) MVLB (MakeVistaLookBetter) displays. This is a design feature, but users who have downgraded their computer systems to vastly inferior Operating Systems (Windows XP or Lin.. [MSKb Editor: REMOVED - Mention that and you're sacked]) may wish to obtain MVLB Service Pack 1 to re-balance the colors to a more natural 'look-and-feel'.
Article ID : 45888372
Last Review : July 25, 2008
Revision : 1.0
SYMPTOMS:
You look at your MVLB display and the world seems rosy.
TECHNICAL INFORMATION:
MVLB display optics have been chromatically adjusted to emphasise the red end of the color spectrum to enhance the user experience with Windows(TM) Vista.
RESOLUTION:
Users can obtain MVLB Service Pack 1, which comprises 3932160 (1280x1024x3) colour-corrected nano-dots. Using the supplied grid alignment device (ruler) and tweezers, one dot should be carefully applied to the surface of the MVLB immediately above each pixel. Note that each nano-dot is color-balanced for a specific pixel color (red, green and blue) and so must be applied above the correct display pixel - each nano-dot has an identifying letter ('R', 'G' and 'B') stamped on its edge. Users will require a tube of superglue and possibly a scanning electron microscope.
NOTE: Do not sneeze whilst applying the nano-dots.
APPLIES TO:
MVLB V1.0 displays
KEYWORDS: MVLB, rosy, tinted, Vista
AT&ROFLMAO
Microsoft research is doing some very cool stuff, I didn't know they also got into hardware research, and this is almost going to fundamental research. No reason to be bashing here, at least it's money spent that isn't going to buy out competition just to smack them, or to pay lawsuits. And if it makes you feel better, most of the innovations from microsoft research don't make it into microsoft products anyway.
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
I have no clue why. Dell/HP/Logitech mice, meh, they're essentially disposable -- I get a new one with every new computer because they're generally on their last legs by then. Persistent gunk issues, laser malfunctioning when running over certain colors, total hardware failure, button responsiveness drops, what have you.
I got a Microsoft laser mouse for ~$50 back in, crikey, must have been about 2000. It isn't a gamer anything -- just two buttons and a wheel -- but that thing is an absolute tank. If its reliability continues like it has through the last near decade of heavy, heavy use it might very well be the last mouse I ever buy.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Something that was invented 20 years ago. I wonder if Texas Instruments have their lawyers on standby...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DLP
Linux is an operating system kernel. Microsoft ( note not Windows ) is a huge multi billion dollar technology company with diverse interests. You are a troll and whoever modded you insightful - what happened, linux ran off with your girlfriend ?
Pixels are placed next to each other so that the maximum possible fill factor of 78% is achieved. [...]
The maximum transmission of a single pixel in the on state can be derived from the fact that the secondary mirror has a diameter equal to half that of the primary mirror and blocks 25% of the backlight. Thus, 75% of the backlight will reach the primary mirror. Simulations indicate that 95% of the light from the primary mirror can reach the pixel's output. In the experiment it was measured to be 61%, which can be further optimized.
The total amount of backlight that can be transmitted by a telescopic pixel display based on the experiment is pi/4 times 0.75 times 61% approximately 36%, and simulations show that up to 56% is possible. The current experimental value is 3.5-7 times greater than that of LCDs, and therefore for the same backlight intensity, the telescopic pixel is 3.5-7 times brighter.
That pi/4 (78.5%) filling density comes from the fact that the circle-shaped pixels are aranged in a square grid, if they arrange them in a hexagonal grid, they would achieve efficiency of pi/(2*sqrt(3)) - 90.7%.
'Invention' is compatible with open source 'schtuf', but the GP is right that Linux is a unix-clone and therefore, limited in the amount of (software) invention it will allow. Granted, /any/ OS is limited and unix is a better choice than most, but there /are/ better models out there, including, ironically, models invented by the very inventors of unix that were already available when Linux was still in its infancy. All you get from cloning unix is a lot of eyeballs and a lot of already compilable source-code. But many choices of better desktop-OS-es and better server-OS-es and better embedded-OS-es have since come and gone.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
You're all wrong - open source software IS capable of innovation. For instance, take a look at LyX, a document processor that beats all else hands down. For that matter, LaTeX itself is open source and is the gold standard in creating technical documents. Neither of these is a copy of a closed source original.
The free software/open source approach works well where people can scratch their own itches - in fields where those who need technical innovation are also capable of developing the technology to do it, such as science and mathematics. It fares less well for products which are developed to be sold to someone else - `office suite' software, or for that matter computer monitor hardware (to get us back onto topic). However, saying that open source is incapable of innovation is like saying that all major discoveries are made by commercial entities rather than universities.
I'm not joking here, I'm genuinely confused.
Why is it that Microsoft is actually a pretty good hardware company? All their peripherals are pretty good. Xbox has a few issues but it's really a one off.
Intel on the other hand is just about the worlds best software company. I spent a lot of time at university working with intel developer tools and libraries without ever encountering a single issue.
HP and most major pharmaceutical companies do the same thing. set up shop on campus and reap the rewards. large companies see R&D just tend to fizzle out as they get bigger...something about all the "town-hall meetings" with management and "facetime" just sucks the will to create right out of 'em. heck, i work for a fortune 100, and i struggled to make a pot of coffee today, let alone do anything that might revolutionize....stuff.....
Good people go to bed earlier.
The one thing that I really do like about the closed model is that Apple and Microsoft seem to be the only two American companies capable of actually taking on foreign competition in their core competencies and winning.
They are just kicking the shit out of Sony and as guy who watched RCA flounder and go down for an answer to the Walkman every iPod and xBox 360 sold just gives me great delight. And now, the even possibility of Microsoft taking back at least the design of electronic screens back from asian manufacturers is pretty damned sweet.
You all may hate Microsoft and Apple and love Linux, but is there any doubt that if Ford and GM were as adeptly run as Microsoft and Apple were, American car companies wouldn't be caught building giant trucks -again- and then take seemingly 5 years to turn around.
This is my sig.
Your point has been repeated over and over. You are -1, Redundant.
Linus Torvalds is not a great thinker, but he has some reasonable ideas. Not long ago he said that innovation is overrated. Anybody can come up with new ideas. The thing is implementing them, and good.
Xerox was great, but Macintosh was more important in bringing the desktop to people.
There are good ideas everywhere, we don't need new ideas, we already know what we want, what is needed is good implementations.
Aside from that, MS is not that good an innovator, either. They didn't come up with WIMP, they didn't come up with the idea of selling it to the masses. They didn't come up with office productivity software. They didn't come up with media players, consoles, mouses, anything.
The thing they are good at is building a product that is good enough (good, when it comes to hardware), and selling it. They rule at marketing. They are the kings of it. They are innovators in that area. But that doesn't benefit the users, so I think it's not important for us, but for their shareholders.
GNU/Linux is a way to get good software, on _my_ terms. It's what I want, and it works. There are alternatives, a lot worse in most regards, and somewhat better in other, but they are not provided on terms that are fair to me, so it's a no-brainer who I will choose. It's not about innovation either. It's about fulfilling my needs, without asking for my first born baby in return.
It's not that F-Lock is so bad, it's the fact that it is ON BY DEFAULT EVERY TIME YOU BOOT THE FRIGGIN PC that's the problem.
The keyboard I'm on right now (a Logitech) has the F-Lock key and I never think about it because it remembers the setting between reboots.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...