Slashdot Mirror


A Widescreen Laser Projector In Your Pocket

Edis Krad writes "Redmond based company Microvision is in the last stages of developing and releasing a portable, laser-based projector, code-named 'Show WX.' The projector has a resolution of 848 by 400 pixels (WVGA) and, since it uses laser-scanning rather than LCD to form the images, it does not require a lens to focus, allowing it to display images virtually in any surface. The device comes with its own user-replaceable battery, which means you could take it with you anywhere you want. Although there is no pricing information on their website, according to this local news video, it could cost at least $200."

189 comments

  1. Can It Function as a Back-Lit Rear Projector? by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    And project an image of my ass onto a car window as I pass someone?

    Because you're sitting on a goldmine if it can.

    What? It can't? *sigh* Oh well. A man can dream, can't he? A man can dream ...

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Can It Function as a Back-Lit Rear Projector? by madfgurtbn · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
    2. Re:Can It Function as a Back-Lit Rear Projector? by inode_buddha · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nope, but you *can* project goatse from your cellphone towards a whole busload of people during rush hour...

      --
      C|N>K
    3. Re:Can It Function as a Back-Lit Rear Projector? by BeardedChimp · · Score: 1

      Why on earth don't they this on their website instead of the horrendous flash mess that gave me a headache just changing tabs, and a 'living room simulation' that simulates bugger all.

      That video on the other is utterly cool and I had all but dismissed the device until I saw that. Cheers for the link

    4. Re:Can It Function as a Back-Lit Rear Projector? by alexhard · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why on earth don't they this on their website

      Because they accidentally the whole thing.

      --
      Infinite time means everything that can happen, will. You being you is absolutely incidental. You do not exist.
    5. Re:Can It Function as a Back-Lit Rear Projector? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      The living room "simulator" actually seems to give a decent idea of how bright it is -- in any sort of lighting at a distance >100", the image is basically unviewable.

      The "source selector" is pretty pointless though.

    6. Re:Can It Function as a Back-Lit Rear Projector? by stonewallred · · Score: 1

      It looked awesome on the youtube video. Of course the cost does not reflect the "tax" the MPIAA(or whatever the movie fucks are called) will get added because of the possible illegal use of showing movies to crowds against the rules.

    7. Re:Can It Function as a Back-Lit Rear Projector? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Because so you are prepared for the headache that those line-scanning high-energy beamers will give you too.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    8. Re:Can It Function as a Back-Lit Rear Projector? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Oh you can bet on me doing that, as soon as it comes out. But why stop at that. There's still meatspin (does not work, in gay Cologne. :P) and 2girls1cup (should work ^^).

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    9. Re:Can It Function as a Back-Lit Rear Projector? by fractoid · · Score: 1

      And project an image of my ass onto a car window as I pass someone?

      No, but this can. :)

      What I don't understand is why, in TFS, they claim "...since it uses laser-scanning rather than LCD to form the images, it does not require a lens to focus, allowing it to display images virtually in any surface." What the hell does the method of focussing have to do with the projection surface? I mean, laser projector is cool but it doesn't change the laws o' physics, captain. Small diode lasers only tend to stay coherent for a short distance (sometimes only inches) so this should work just as well with any collimated light source. I'd be interested to know how it scans, though - rotating mirrors seems a bit risky in a device that people are going to be moving around while it's on.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    10. Re:Can It Function as a Back-Lit Rear Projector? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell does the method of focussing have to do with the projection surface? I mean, laser projector is cool but it doesn't change the laws o' physics, captain.

      Lasers are coherent light. They don't require a lens system to adjust the focal length.

    11. Re:Can It Function as a Back-Lit Rear Projector? by zary · · Score: 1

      Whoah! I didn't know that /. modded -1's!!!

    12. Re:Can It Function as a Back-Lit Rear Projector? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Dear God and/or Taco: please, make it stop.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  2. Or... by Sobieski · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are you just happy to see me?

    --
    Particles, stuff that matters.
    1. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope, not happy at all.

  3. Price is expected to be by al0ha · · Score: 5, Informative

    $400 to $500 USD according to the manufacturer site; not $200. Dang, $200 would have been awesome.

    --
    Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
    1. Re:Price is expected to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding. This is one of those cases where profit maximization gets in the way of progress. I'd buy one of these as a toy / no questions asked at $200. But at $500 they can keep that shit, 'cause I'm no longer even interested.

    2. Re:Price is expected to be by madfgurtbn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Dang, $200 would have been awesome.

      It should get there, in a couple years. The reason it will be so expensive to start with is two new technologies in one: Scanning MEMS mirror which projects the image, and the green lasers inside, which have not been produced before.

      Microvision has been waiting for green laser supplier for a long time. Corning has built a facility and is ramping up production of green lasers now.

      When green lasers are available in quantities of millions, the laser projectors will be built into blackberries, iphones, digital cameras, etc.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
    3. Re:Price is expected to be by WarlockD · · Score: 4, Informative

      $400-$500 IS awesome! God do you know how much bulbs cost for even the "cheap" projectors? Hell, even if you WANT to get a bulb, try to get one for just a 4 year old projector. Its worst than god damn ink cartridges.

      Its why I have been looking at the LED based ones, but they are just not bright enough for my purposes. Give me one of these with just a 10k laser life AND an HD out? I am as good as sold.

    4. Re:Price is expected to be by madfgurtbn · · Score: 5, Informative

      Its why I have been looking at the LED based ones, but they are just not bright enough for my purposes.

      LED-based on the left, laser projection on the right: http://www.picoprojector-info.com/files/picoprojector/images/DSC_0016.preview.jpg

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
    5. Re:Price is expected to be by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      what's wrong with red lasers?

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    6. Re:Price is expected to be by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They don't produce a very good green. Frequency doubled IR is not an option either because you can't modulate the beam fast enough.

    7. Re:Price is expected to be by Swizec · · Score: 0

      Well with red lasers, for instance, it's really difficult to put the G in RGB ... (or more likely the C in CMYK)

    8. Re:Price is expected to be by Anpheus · · Score: 3, Informative

      *eyebrow* This is additive not subtractive mixing. So, yes, the G in RGB. When you develop a laser that subtracts light, let me know, I want to invest.

    9. Re:Price is expected to be by Swizec · · Score: 1

      *eyebrow* This is additive not subtractive mixing. So, yes, the G in RGB. When you develop a laser that subtracts light, let me know, I want to invest.

      One concept: destructive interference.

      I've only done college level physics so my knowledge on this could be sketchy. But when two beams of light interact they get brighter at some points and dimmer at other points. However, it might just be that both of these interactions are absolute. So either no light, or double light ... don't really know from the top of my head *shrug*

    10. Re:Price is expected to be by madfgurtbn · · Score: 5, Informative

      Frequency doubled IR is not an option either because you can't modulate the beam fast enough.

      Actually, the Corning green lasers in the ShowWX are freq doubled. True green is not expected for several years at least. More on the Corning lasers here.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
    11. Re:Price is expected to be by Dekker3D · · Score: 1

      i've only read about that one with sound. because at some points, two "tops" of a sine wave would meet, it would have the volume of both added together. at other distances away from eachother, one positive top meets a negative top, and they cancel eachother out.

      since the wavelengths of visible light are far shorter than those of sounds we can hear, it'd be pretty impressive if you could see that with your own eyes. i'm not even sure if it applies to light, but.. not ruling that one out. just saying any effect you see would be miniscule.

    12. Re:Price is expected to be by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Guess it only used to be a problem then ... although the proof is in the pudding of course.

    13. Re:Price is expected to be by byornski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Two waves of different frequency will not interact in the same way as in say Young's double slit experiment. When two waves of nearly equal frequency are added, "beats" appear in the waveform that would appear as a brightening and darkening of the light in different places over time... beats

    14. Re:Price is expected to be by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Sure it applies to light. (I think. ^^) And it works only with laser, because only there the waves are perfectly in sync. I think that is GPs point.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    15. Re:Price is expected to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One concept: destructive interference.

      And walls that are level to within a fraction of a wavelength of visible light! I'm buying me a sandpaper company.

    16. Re:Price is expected to be by rcw-home · · Score: 1

      either no light, or double light

      And everything inbetween, actually.

      Two sine waves of the same frequency and amplitude will, when added together, result in a single sine wave of the same frequency. The amplitude of that sine wave depends on the phase angle (0 to 360 degrees) and will range from 0 (flat line) at 0/360 degrees to 2 at 180 degrees.

    17. Re:Price is expected to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're assuming that $200 would have made them any money at all.

      The "make it up in volume" theory doesn't work when you're not actually making any profit.

    18. Re:Price is expected to be by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Guess it only used to be a problem then ... although the proof is in the pudding of course.

      It makes *pudding*, too?! Jesus Christ, sign me up for one of those bad boys!

      I hope it has a Butterscotch mode...

    19. Re:Price is expected to be by Quothz · · Score: 2, Informative

      The "make it up in volume" theory doesn't work when you're not actually making any profit.

      It can. If you can eat enough of a loss to start selling under your cost, sometimes you can get the production cost low enough to turn out a profit. That's what "make it up in volume" means.

    20. Re:Price is expected to be by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      848x400 resolution... Buy six and a frame splitter (or series of splitters), and you can get 1696x1200. Buy nine, and you can get 2544x1200. Of course, mounting is up to you. Might be worth it to replace certain projectors.

    21. Re:Price is expected to be by BigPeen · · Score: 3, Informative

      I work on long wavelength InGaN (green) lasers. They're at least a year away from being delveloped in the lab, and probably another year from production.

    22. Re:Price is expected to be by vikstar · · Score: 1

      Green laser pointers have been around for years, how are they different to the ones that are used in these projectors?

      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    23. Re:Price is expected to be by marciot · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The posting said "it could cost at least $200". So, although it could cost $200, it could also cost $2,000 or maybe even $20,000. In other words, that wasn't the most useful bit of information to begin with :)

    24. Re:Price is expected to be by default+luser · · Score: 1

      More on the Corning lasers here.

      From the article: they want 100 mW devices?!?

      How exactly are we supposed to use these safely without eye protection? You can cause eye damage with much less power.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    25. Re:Price is expected to be by crhylove · · Score: 1

      Couldn't you produce an equal and opposite frequency light wave and cancel the original one, like they do in noise cancellation?

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    26. Re:Price is expected to be by GameMaster · · Score: 1

      First off, assuming they are using lasers that powerful, you are, hopefully, looking at the projected image and not directly into the projector. Also, the laser may be 100mW, but it's only pointing any given direction for a tiny percentage of a second (second / refresh rate * number of pixels). That shouldn't be long enough to do damage.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
  4. in? by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "In" any surface? How am I supposed to see it?

    "On" a surface makes sense. "In" a surface would entertain Morlocks.

    Just the thing for Morlock porn tho.

    1. Re:in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be depressed a lot.

  5. Meetings by XPeter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This could be very useful in the cooperate world. Instead of dragging around charts projectors and things alike; have this nifty device in your pocket and your presentation is ready.

    --
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:Meetings by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      NoNoNoNO!!! Bad Xpeter, Bad boy. Do you realize how fucking annoying this is going to be? PowerPoint presentations everywhere. Is that the kind of world you want to grow up in?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Meetings by sznupi · · Score: 1

      I'd argue there's more to making a presentation that simply available technology.

      Sadly, the amount of horrible Powerpoint presentations one has to witness in this world means my views are not very common... (at least at the point when average person, bored during presentation while on the audience, has to be a presenter and simply uses Powerpoint as a cheat-sheet)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    3. Re:Meetings by Daengbo · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was thinking along the lines of "Cool! Pocket porn projector!."

    4. Re:Meetings by InfernalRuss · · Score: 2, Funny

      so you and 3 of your closest friends could whack off together... in starbucks... back to coffee at home again i think

    5. Re:Meetings by chromas · · Score: 1

      PowerPoint can be a good thing, you know. Start the presentation, then switch over to shiny, sparkly screensavers and step out for a couple hours. A recording yourself quoting sci-fi technobabble will keep their ears entertained.

    6. Re:Meetings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, sure. But imagine the pranks that are possible. It's a new frontier.

    7. Re:Meetings by thexile · · Score: 2, Funny

      You want more cream or less?

    8. Re:Meetings by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 1

      As annoying as the mid 90's when large meetings involving both "Suits" and IT people ended on a proposal that another meeting gets scheduled. This is immediately followed by everyone wearing a suit whipping out a flat box with a glass face, in perfectly choreographed unison, and incessantly tapping it with a plastic scribe.

      It was a major ego moment for the suits that day. See where that led all of us now....

      Give Karma points to the first person to guess the device.

    9. Re:Meetings by KC7JHO · · Score: 1

      Projecting a "cartoon" doorway on a brick wall ...

  6. That's what I keep saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is not about how long it is, it's the aspect ratio that matters.

    1. Re:That's what I keep saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      she still isint buying that argument.

    2. Re:That's what I keep saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's only one reason to say it doesn't matter how long it is.

  7. Next big thing by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

    This, combined with something like "The Sixth Sense" That I saw over on TED.com would be amazing, since the only pitfall to their device was that it was an actual projector you had to wear around your neck.

    1. Re:Next big thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This, quarter of the size in the stems in my glasses. Please! :)

    2. Re:Next big thing by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      And then combine those two with something like this**, and connect it to this and a GPS dealie, and we have a whole new medium.


      **((It's really worth the time to print out the marker if you haven't seen this yet))

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
  8. Cool! by Penguinshit · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I can project even more realistic UFOs on low clouds near the airport!

    1. Re:Cool! by bfmorgan · · Score: 1, Funny

      And be arrested for shinning a laser into the sky at any passing aircraft - Gitomo here you come.

      --
      I hope this caused some synapses to fire.
    2. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear Gitomo is nice this time of year.

    3. Re:Cool! by Penguinshit · · Score: 1

      I hear the surfing in Cuba is good and uncrowded...

    4. Re:Cool! by SigmaTao · · Score: 1

      Get in before the close it down! Last chance.

  9. Can somebody explain how it works? by lobiusmoop · · Score: 1

    Laser projector? How can you project a raster image using a inherently vector system?

    I don't get it. How does it know how big the pixels should be?

    (Or maybe it's obvious and I just need a beating with the clue stick here)

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by bzzfzz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Rotating or oscillating mirrors to cause the beam to scan, similar to what laser barcode scanners use.

    2. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess would be:

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

    3. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by CmdrSammo · · Score: 1

      Use the scan-line technique to scan each line with a rapidly adjustable mix of red, green and blue lasers.

      As long as the laser light spreads out proportional to the distance it has travelled the picture should look good wherever the laser will reach. My only worry is the battery life.

    4. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Informative

      Think: CRTs use an electron beam ... maybe you can figure the rest out all by yourself.

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by acrobg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My guess would be that it projects as three scanning lasers: for red, green, and blue. Because they would be scanning across, the field of view as the beams of light move away from projector gets larger (hence larger projection at a larger distance). However, it also gets dimmer, meaning a 12" projection distance will havea brighter image than a 100" projection distance. Also, if you're projecting closer, it looks like it will have more definition to the image as well. Not that the pixel-count will change, but the amount of space each pixel takes up wil be larger, so if it's 100" away, but the image is viewed from 3' away from the screen, the image should look pixelated, as opposed to viewing it from a farther distance.

    6. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by ab8ten · · Score: 1

      Laser projector? How can you project a raster image using a inherently vector system?

      I don't get it. How does it know how big the pixels should be?

      (Or maybe it's obvious and I just need a beating with the clue stick here)

      The light from the three RGB lasers is scanned in rows just like the electron beam in a CRT. To sweep the angle, a tiny mirror flexes very fast. The technical challenge for these projectors has been switching the mirror fast enough and getting decent performance from miniature red green and blue lasers. I think the blue one was the tough nut to crack.

      --
      I have no .sig
    7. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by serutan · · Score: 1

      You know how a TV tube works? The electron beam sweeps back and forth really fast, painting each dot on the screen? Well the laser in this thing is like the beam and the wall is like the screen. Since the laser beam can travel a great distance and still make just a small dot, so the image are in focus at different distances. Of course the farther away the screen is, the farther apart the dots are, so the image would become grainy at some point.

    8. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by Myriad · · Score: 5, Informative

      This has been done before, IIRC Samsung released one of the first TV quality raster scanning system for laser shows.

      Basically a standard laser show setup uses multiple lasers (to get your RGB) combined into a single beam then passed through a device, such as a PCAOM, which acts as rather like a programmable colour filter. (this isn't the only way it can be done with solid state lasers).

      Two sets of mirrors can be steered in the X and Y axis to draw your shapes, beam effects, etc.

      In the case of a TV or other raster displays the beam is steered much like you would an electron beam on a regular TV. It scans a horizontal line, moves down scans across, repeat. You can switch the direction of the scan (left to right, then right to left) on alternating lines to speed up the scan rate.

      Wikipedia has some info on Laser TV's in general: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_TV and LaserFX has some info on PCAOM's if you're interested in the older tech: http://www.laserfx.com/Backstage.LaserFX.com/Archives/Archives6.html

      Early systems actually used multiple projectors overlapping or drawing the first 3rd, 2nd third, etc of the image to make up for slower scan rates.

      --
      "They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
    9. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by lobiusmoop · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think this is where I'm tripping up. I always assume laser light is perfectly collimated so that the projected dot at 1cm is that same size as at 1m, but I guess the projector uses slightly unfocused beam to generate a larger dot with relatively short increases in projection distance to avoid getting just a collection of horizontal or vertical lines appearing instead of an image.

      --
      "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    10. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by lobiusmoop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      CRT's project an electron beam into a fixed-size phosphor pixel on the screen. This is projecting a laser dot onto a wall (or whatever), I was mostly just not sure how you get an image instead of just a series of lines appearing.

      --
      "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    11. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If the beam diffusion angle or wtfever it is called (I am not a physicist, mathematician, etc, sorry) can be sufficiently tuned the dots never get further away from each other; in fact, they might even overlap. They will be spread out, though, so they will get dimmer.

      This seems like a pretty decent way to get full HD at home.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, remember that the pixel is created by turning on the laser while the mirror is passing by the point where the reflected beam would hit the target. If you leave the laser on just a little while longer, your pixels will be larger, in one dimension. In other words, instead of a grid of points:
      . . . .
      . . . .
      . . . .

      you have a grid of lines:
      _ _ _ _
      _ _ _ _
      _ _ _ _

      The vertical gaps would be an issue at long distances, but there's no reason the horizontal gaps should be particularly large.

      Of course the effective range would be limited by the brightness of the lasers. If your screen is far enough away that you can't see the reflection of the laser beams coming back to you, then it doesn't matter how big the pixels are.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    13. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      This has been done before, IIRC Samsung released one of the first TV quality raster scanning system for laser shows.

      It has also been done with electron beams in arcane devices known as CRTs.

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    14. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by Edis+Krad · · Score: 1

      True, however none have been this tiny. The keyword here is 'portability'. I work with laser projectors and come in these huge metal boxes that weight at least a 5 to 10 kilograms.
      This type of portable displaying opens a lot of interest possibilities. Particularly, I'm thinking of Augmented Reality applications.

    15. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by IronMagnus · · Score: 1

      This one fits in your pocket, and is happy to see you.

    16. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no reason not to widen the beam to fill the gaps. The image will stay just as sharp at all distances. You just have to get the right angle of divergence for the resolution and angle of view, for example: 30 degree vertical field of view / 400 lines = 0.075 degrees beam divergence.

      LCD projectors need to be focussed differently for different projection distances because the lens only creates a sharp picture of the LCD surface on the other side at one distance from the lens. See Wikipedia. Unlike LCD projectors, which need to focus beams with different directions onto one point on the projection surface, laser projectors only use lenses to widen the single beam a little.

    17. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by megaditto · · Score: 1

      Convex mirrors would do it.

      You pretty much don't want a perfectly collimated beam coming out because of all the safety and health regulations. Since this projector's lasers would have power on the order of tens of watts, you would get nice burns in your retina the moment a scanning mirror fails.

      I am still not sure how they would stop people losing eyesight by staring up close into the beam...

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    18. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      I am still not sure how they would stop people losing eyesight by staring up close into the beam...

      I can buy a propane torch for $10 and I wouldn't want to stare up close into that while it's lit. My 10-year-old bought a bb gun at Walmart and it certainly isn't eye-safe.

      My question is how they prevent it from flickering badly, since (unlike phosphors in a TV) there is no persistence from a projector screen. Seems like you'd need an extremely fast refresh rate, perhaps displaying each frame 4 times or more.

    19. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      CRT's project an electron beam into a fixed-size phosphor pixel on the screen.

      Only with color TVs is there any semblance of a "dot" of any kind, due to the method used to produce different colors. B&W TVs don't have any notion of "dots"

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    20. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I don't know what they're doing, but I see two possibilities.
      One is raster scan, which others have mentioned, which involves moving mirrors and modulating the lasers. I've been told this is not practical due to the physical difficulties of controlling fast moving mirrors. (But this advice is 20 years old.)
      The other is the Texas Instruments micromirror approach. The laser beam is diverged to cover the whole mirror chip, and individual micromirror movements modulate each pixel.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    21. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The eye won't see a series of lines if it's modulated fast enough. Ever see a high speed photograph of a CRT or TV? You see a short line segment, not the whole display. The persistence isn't in the phosphor, it's in your eyes.

    22. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Actually CRTs just blast the beam to the screen segment, which will often reach a few holes in the shadow mask. This will often limit the "resolution" as it will become more blurry the smaller you go, but there isn't a fixed size. And they only need the shadow mask to seperate the colors, black and white CRTs don't have them.
      And aperture grill CRTs are completely free regarding vertical scanning resolution.

    23. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by mooterSkooter · · Score: 1

      Does this mean you could actually burn Goatse onto someones retina? What a horrible thought: the last image you ever get to see being Goatse

    24. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as the laser light spreads out proportional to the distance it has travelled the picture should look good wherever the laser will reach.

      How could it not? Light tends to travel through air in straight lines.

    25. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Go back in time a bit and think about monochrome CRTs. These projected an electron beam on to a sheet of phosphor-covered glass. Now look at CRT projectors. They do exactly the same thing, with three glass screens, and the light shines on to the screen.

      Remember that the laser dot isn't a point in the mathematical sense. It has size. Move it from left to right quickly and you get a line drawn (with help from persistence of vision) and when you move it down a bit and draw another line underneath, you get a small rectangle. Do this for enough lines (400, for this model) and you get an image. By adjusting the intensity of the laser as it moves, you can get shades of whatever colour the laser is. Do this with three lasers (red, green, and blue) and you get a full colour image.

      The question is whether the combination of persistence of vision and the slight amount of absorption and reemission that the screen will do is enough to reduce flicker below a perceptible level. A laser projector is a trivial device, in theory. The difficult bit is the engineering problem of moving the beam fast enough.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    26. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Only color TVs which need to aim at a pixel of given color.

      Think back to b&w TVs which had no pixels. Extinguish the beam on pixels you don't want lit.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    27. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by crimperman · · Score: 1

      > This seems like a pretty decent way to get full HD at home.

      at 10 Lumens? I think not

    28. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming a perfect emitter with a zero-diameter aperture, a perfectly collimated beam can be produced. A 1-mm diameter beam measured at 1 inch from the source will still be 1-mm when measured a mile from the source. In reality, there is no such thing as a zero-diameter aperture, therefore the beam will diverge. The amount of divergence can be controlled by the optics.

      If you use an optical element that produces a vertical divergence equal to the angular size of a single pixel, the beam will vertically fill a row at any distance from the projector.

      Horizontal divergence should be kept as low as possible, as the individual pixels will be filled by virtue of the horizontal scanning process.

    29. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 1

      Point a laser at a wall. Now, what happens the further away from that wall you move? The dot it makes gets bigger and slightly dimmer... Now what would likely happen with a moving "dot" that moves faster than the eye can see? The "dots" it makes would get bigger and slightly dimmer... seems to make sense to me, but I'm not a laser guru or anything.

      --
      Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
    30. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by GameMaster · · Score: 1

      He, it's funny. You, probably, think your a wise-ass for pointing that out but if you hadn't been too lazy to read the rest of his post you'd notice that he already mentioned CRTs...

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    31. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by PacoBell · · Score: 1

      Another reason for the slightly unfocused beam might be to reduce speckle. Highly collimated light tends to produce a more noticeable speckle pattern. Here's the salient Microvision's patent.

    32. Re:Can somebody explain how it works? by PacoBell · · Score: 1

      The basic concept is sound. How much power you want to output (safely!) is a minor technicality.

  10. Microvision by noidentity · · Score: 0

    Redmond based company Microvision is in the last stages of developing and releasing a portable, laser-based projector, code-named 'Show WV.' The projector has a resolution of 848 by 400 pixels (WVGA)

    Unfortunately, it drops to 1/4 the resolution and makes the brightness increase and decrease constantly when trying to display any copyrighted material.

    1. Re:Microvision by GenP · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except it's the other way around.

  11. Great for bedtime by serutan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Project a movie or an e-book on your ceiling. No more tired arms from holding books up. I'm getting one of these babies!

    1. Re:Great for bedtime by linzeal · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or project another woman in bed with you so you can have a threesome with your wife.

    2. Re:Great for bedtime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL flabby arms.

    3. Re:Great for bedtime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      This is slashdot. Shouldn't that be project a woman on the basement ceiling so you can have a twosome?

    4. Re:Great for bedtime by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 4, Funny

      During my bedtime, I also like to look at movies and publications, but my arms get tired for a very different reason. I don't think a laser projector would really help...

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    5. Re:Great for bedtime by DanielLC · · Score: 1

      Project a movie or an e-book on your ceiling. No more tired arms from holding books up. I'm getting one of these babies!

      Obligatory xkcd link. The blag is still xkcd, right?

  12. IMHO . . . by hansede · · Score: 1

    . . . iPods are the natural application for ultra-portable projectors. Having a projector built into a portable device that stores all my favorite movies would be sick. Of course, the MPAA would have something to say about that.

    1. Re:IMHO . . . by idontgno · · Score: 1

      So would the unfortunate people around you who are exposed to your choice in "favorite movies" as they're projected not-so-discreetly onto some convenient surface.

      You sick, sick person.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  13. hey mr. DJ by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

    mini laser projector + netbook = crazy disco scene that can fit in your pocket. whip it out on the subway on friday night with some dance techno and colorful visualizations to have the swingin'est ride to the bar ever.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:hey mr. DJ by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      winamp the 1.04 milkdrop and the 3d presets

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    2. Re:hey mr. DJ by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Oh, Lords of Kobol, please make it stop!

      (not sure how popular it is at your place, but recently teens here on the stupid side of bell curve tend to listen as loud as possible to crap music on crap loudspeakers of their cellphones while walking on the street/etc.)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    3. Re:hey mr. DJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know they'll "blast" their music from half inch speakers in their mobile phones... If that trend doesn't die off soon, I'll buy a ghettoblaster and show those young whippersnappers how it's done.

    4. Re:hey mr. DJ by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      They exist people who don't care to party all night long. I am sure after coming home from a long day of work and some dude turns your subway in to a rave, you will find someone "accidentally" smashing it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  14. Smallest netbook? by crunch_ca · · Score: 1

    I was thinking about this the other day as I was on a plane jammed into a seat with a laptop. I'd love to see this hooked up to something like:

    The wall wart

    This would make netbooks seem bulky by comparison.

    1. Re:Smallest netbook? by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1
      What about the keyboard? You could use a laser keyboard, but they are said to be a real pain to type on because of the lack of feedback (although tiny netbook keys also can be annoying).Otherwise, there. the other good option would be a roll-up keyboard, which takes up more space but could be wrapped around the box and power brick.

      Nonetheless, I would probably buy one when the price comes down.

  15. Vaporware by JO_DIE_THE_STAR_F*** · · Score: 1

    I went to http://www.microvision.com/ and it seemed to me to be a bunch of photo shopped pictures with promises of working with manufactures maybe, sometime in the future to make things kinda like the ones they were talking about. Vaporware.

    1. Re:Vaporware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not vaporware. Just off-in-the-distanceware.

      For example, they've been working on making wearable heads-up displays since the early 90's. They actually have a product available now (the Microvision Nomad), but it's too still expensive (costs more than a Segway) for practical use.

  16. Vaporware. by Craig+Davison · · Score: 2, Funny

    There's no price, and demo of this thing working, because it doesn't exist yet. But they do have CG mockups in 10 different colors!

    1. Re:Vaporware. by anomnomnomymous · · Score: 4, Informative

      Check the Buzz section of the site: So much for your vaporware...

      --
      When you shoot a mime, do you use a silencer?
    2. Re:Vaporware. by Zerth · · Score: 1

      That's normal for Microvision. I don't think they've ever actually released a consumer product. I'm still waiting for their super-tiny hi-res wearable displays from circa 1998.

  17. Power and brightness... by bzzfzz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... are the two limitations of small projectors. They claim 10 lumens while most conventional mains-powered projectors are typically 1000-2000 lumens. That makes the product usable alone in a darkened room but not much of anywhere else. Their claim of "movie capable" battery life rather than a specific time period leads me to conclude that they watch shorter than average movies.

    I predict that, like the pen scanner, this proves to be a geeky cool but practically useless device.

    1. Re:Power and brightness... by j1mmy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The trade-off is performance vs size. You can take this thing anywhere and you don't need to plug it in to the wall.

    2. Re:Power and brightness... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Hm, need for a "darkened room"...that could actually be an advantage when inviting somebody for moviewatching ;p

      (yes, I eagerly await lower prices, hopefully by this Autumn, on DLP (or what was the name of that TI micromirror technology) based miniprojectors)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    3. Re:Power and brightness... by timeOday · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wonder why don't they release a normal-sized, mains-powered projector with awesome brightness first?

    4. Re:Power and brightness... by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      DLP picoprojectors are already pretty cheap, the problem is that it still needs to be setup like a traditional projector because it uses projecting optics ... whereas with a laser projector it's easy to project in focus on any surface from any angle (although you would need programmable keystone correction to make the most of that).

    5. Re:Power and brightness... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      My guess is that they're still using one or two generation old diode technology in their lasers. I did some sums a while ago and worked out that, to get the same brighness as my 200W projector, you'd need about a 12W LED. That's a lot for a handheld device, but it's about the same draw as the screen in my laptop. Note that this is bright enough for a two meter diagonal display which is visible with the curtains open at any time when the sun isn't shining directly on to the screen. If you just want a 20" display in a coffee shop, you could probably dial the power back to closer to 2W.

      Ideally, you'd be able to switch between these two modes depending on whether the machine had power. Imagine a pocket computer that you could use with a smallish (but still bigger than most laptops) projected display while you were mobile and then plug in when you got home and have it use bluetooth input devices and project a display that covered a wall.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Power and brightness... by PacoBell · · Score: 1

      "Their claim of "movie capable" battery life rather than a specific time period leads me to conclude that they watch shorter than average movies." You're mistaken.

  18. Summary is Wrong by phreakhead · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's called the SHOW WX, not SHOW WV. FTFA: "WX stands for "wide experience", referring to the wide image format, wide color range and wide always in-focus operation."

    As a VJ, I could really use one of these instead of hauling around my huge HD projector, since I only project at 320x240 anyway (to keep real-time video mixing fast). Hopefully the battery really lasts as long as a movie though!

    1. Re:Summary is Wrong by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Hopefully it will be able to be charged and powered via USB.

    2. Re:Summary is Wrong by Chitlenz · · Score: 1

      Man no kidding, we're just buying a second projector to play out with (we as a 3 man crew mix Dnb and psytrance) after the first one fried. A pocketsized projector that matches the lazers? Totally win, even at 500$. I remember seeing really cool demos done with lazer projection and fog machines too. I wonder what one of these looks like through haze.

      --
      Imagination is the silver lining of Intelligence.
    3. Re:Summary is Wrong by PacoBell · · Score: 1
  19. Wake me up by markdavis · · Score: 1

    when the resolution is at least 1024 wide (1280 preferable) and it can project with more than 10 lumens of light! (Their Macromedia Flash demo thing on the website is waaaaaay optimistic about how bright it will look). The slashvertisement site "specs" also conveniently leaves off critical information such as what resolutions it can accept (and downscale), what types of cables are included, what type of battery and real estimates of battery life, exactly how much power does it pull (can you operate it live with the usb or just charge), what the image latency/persistence is like, how it deals with 4:3 ratios, etc.

    Neat product though!

  20. I spoke too soon by Craig+Davison · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's a video from dl.tv: http://dl.tv/2008/01/ces_2008_microvision_show_proj.php

    There's no mention of battery life, and it looks like the framerate might be terrible, but it's a real product!

    1. Re:I spoke too soon by wasmoke · · Score: 1

      The framerate issues in the video might also be a result of recording a video of a video. Not sure, just a thought.

    2. Re:I spoke too soon by modecx · · Score: 2, Informative

      it looks like the framerate might be terrible

      I'm sure the framerate is just fine. The problem is: the camera isn't in synced with the display's scan rate, and 2) lasers can turn on and off (go from full off to full on) a HELL of a lot faster than anything on usual display devices. (phosphors in a CRT unload their photons over a longer period of time, LCDs switch slower, etc) I imagine the real scan rate is actually has to be higher than 75 hz, just because of that phenomena, either that or they have to have some sort of dwell state built into the display engine... Flicker sensitive people would have a hell of a time at just 60 hz.

      I think this is very exciting. I can't wait for the day they integrate something like this into a standard CRT (or greater) size rear projection monitor... If they do their part right, it'll blow everything else away in both color accuracy and pixel density. It's great that they've managed to make this into a pocket projector, but I think it'll have as many, if not more applications in traditional devices. I think that's the real bread and butter market for this.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  21. An improvement from the 1st generation by swanzilla · · Score: 1

    Gen-1 was limited to near-the-pocket use [Think Geek]

  22. Language barrier by tepples · · Score: 1

    "In" any surface? How am I supposed to see it?

    The line between "in" and "on" varies per language. The submitter is likely not a native English speaker.

    1. Re:Language barrier by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      The submitter is likely not a native English speaker.

      Anyone other than Slashdot one of the main jobs of an editor is to fix errors. Here they rely on the submitter and the howls of protest in the comments.

  23. awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    great, now teenagers will be able to project their HILARIOUS youtube videos on the big screen every time you go to the movies.

    It'll be like laser pointers x 1000

    1. Re:awesome by fucket · · Score: 1

      Look on the bright side, you could get Rickrolled in person.

  24. Is that a Laser Projector In Your Pocket...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or are you just happy to see me?

  25. Sharks by CrashandDie · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sharks with Freakin' lasers attached to their heads!

    1. Re:Sharks by ToasterOven · · Score: 1

      They ought to make the projector shaped like a shark head.

      Just sayin'.

  26. When? by mkro · · Score: 1

    The Youtube video was posted January 12, 2008 :\

    --
    I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
    1. Re:When? by madfgurtbn · · Score: 1

      When?

      First small quantities of the accessory projector are promised "this summer". Embedded in phones about a year after, as green lasers become available in large quantities.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
  27. I think I speak for all of us when I ask.. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    Does it run on sharks?

    1. Re:I think I speak for all of us when I ask.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing I'm asking for is frickin' penises with frickin' lasers on their frickin' heads.

    2. Re:I think I speak for all of us when I ask.. by tuxicle · · Score: 1

      Only if they are scanning sharks...

  28. Can I get it... by PortHaven · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In 1080p and capable of 120hz refresh rate?

    ???

  29. Nice name by nsayer · · Score: 1

    Better Microvision than Macrovision.

    1. Re:Nice name by LordSnooty · · Score: 2, Funny

      Their version works just as well but er... it turns to snow if you don't point it at a fully licensed wall. (sorry)

  30. For teh lulz by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

    It's is SO going into an iPhone in 2 or 3 years. From that point on consider this : people use the motion sensor to stabilise the image, which will be pretty cool, and secondly, people start making a whole bunch of iPhone apps to make all sorts of "pranks".

    Hard to tell what they'll come up with but you just know that kids will have a field day with that. And by day I mean decade.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  31. One Small Problem by ToasterOven · · Score: 1

    As freaking cool as this is, it has an inherent problem.

    Laser pointers getting aimed at people's faces are bad enough, but this is like having 3 lasers waved around wildly.

    A good number of projectors are used to display a screen to a large audience, while a presenter stands in front of it. For the presenter, getting the light in the eye is nearly unavoidable. So with lasers, you're talking serious eye damage if you're in the way.

    1. Re:One Small Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that's not a problem. The dwell time of the dot that's being painted is so quick, it wouldn't be dangerous unless you stared directly into it for a while.

      Staring into the lens of a 3000 lumen business projector would be much more dangerous.

    2. Re:One Small Problem by wjsteele · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, becuase it's a Class III Laser, even continous exposure would not cause permanent damage. That's why it's only .5 mw.

      If they'd pump it up to, say 200mw, then they could have a lot of fun. 25mw is enough to pop a black latex ballon.

      Bill

      --
      It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
  32. Hmmmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you happy to see me or do you have A Widescreen Laser Projector In Your Pocket?

  33. Now nerds can communicate with girls by DeadDecoy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now nerds can communicate with girls in a structured manner.
    Just Imagine:

    *** Start power point presentation ***
    Slide 1:
    Objective - To go out on date

    Slide 2:
    Reasons -
    - Have money
    - Provide intelligent conversation
    - Will Listen

    Slide 3:
    Places -
    - Movies
    - Beach

    .....

    'Hey wait, where are you going?'

    *** End power point presentation ***

    1. Re:Now nerds can communicate with girls by beav007 · · Score: 1

      Seems to be something that you'd see in xkcd...

  34. Is that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a widescreen projector in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

  35. Anedcotial experience with laser beamers. by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    I heard from a friend who works at a cinema, that some years ago, they tried to build laser projectors. They were incredibly sharp and brilliant. So brilliant in fact, that the viewers got their faces painfully burned. (Dunno if just from passing by. Or from looking at it, which would mean their eyes got damaged too.)

    It may only be an anecdote. But I do not trust these things. ^^

    Oh, and with the massive parallelism of LCD and DLP displays, I was happy for the not very healthy flickering of line-scan displays being gone. So another point to preferring non-laser devices.

    But I am curious what new knowledge the future brings. :)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    1. Re:Anedcotial experience with laser beamers. by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      DLPs do flicker (as do plasma displays). It's just at a high enough frequency you don't notice.

    2. Re:Anedcotial experience with laser beamers. by radoni · · Score: 2, Informative

      I do work at a cinema. Your "friend" is talking fantasy. The standard for years past and years to come is and will continue to be Film. Who would have access to a full color movie-capable scanning laser projection system? I can find no evidence to support the claim that any audience in cinematic history has had their faces BURNED from laser projection, not even to say that this has ever existed in a cinema.
      For those curious about what the !@#$ top poster is going on about and how the Microvision scanning laser projection technology relates to cinema...
      Maintaining a cinema projector lamp house light source is MUCH LESS expensive for equal hours in operation than the light source for a consumer LCD or DLP projector. It's also much more incredibly bright than anything on the consumer market. Theaters will not be interested in the Microvision technology for showing their movies, because it will not be bright enough and you would inherit all the annoying problems of having a digital print anyways.
      Film is preferred over Digital because you can pick up a film in a multiplex and move it between booths and platter systems quite readily. Being able to readily move a print around is how you maximize profits... are there really any kids awake at a 9pm showing to go see the latest Disney movie about talking cats and superhero hamsters? Adding lasers into the picture doesn't offer anything lucrative even at a Theater set up for digital projection.
      Theaters using film projectors often use a consumer projector for on-screen advertising, and so the Microvision technology looks pretty good for this if it is bright enough to fill the screen (from a pretty long throw distance). It doesn't have to be high definition or anything, just watchable and cost less than the existing gear to maintain. Digital equipped theaters would still use their cinema projectors to display advertising because it is cheaper to do so.
      The Microvision technology will primarily appeal to the home theater market segment, where enthusiasts are paying much higher costs than real cinemas to maintain their projection system light source. After the SHOW WX gains momentum as a first generation product, expect to see this technology compete with consumer projection systems, and to become invasive just as the camera has on cell phones and media devices.

      --
      SIGERR: laziness exceeds quota
    3. Re:Anedcotial experience with laser beamers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Film is preferred over Digital because you can pick up a film in a multiplex and move it between booths and platter systems quite readily. Being able to readily move a print around is how you maximize profits...

      Surely digital data is more portable than physical rolls of film?

    4. Re:Anedcotial experience with laser beamers. by HanClinto · · Score: 1

      Surely digital data is more portable than physical rolls of film?

      From the MPAA "theft perspective", the ease of portability might be part of the problem.

      On top of that, keep in mind that a theater-quality digital print of a movie is significantly larger than your standard 4 gb DVD.

  36. 848 x 400? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    That is not "widescreen". Well, except in contrast to old-style analog television. But by today's standards, that is downright shitty resolution.

    1. Re:848 x 400? by Panaflex · · Score: 1

      It should have been 848x480, at least according to the specs on the site.

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
    2. Re:848 x 400? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Huh? It's 2.12:1, which is roughly the same aspect ratio as cinemas. In what way is that not widescreen? Most widescreen TV is 16:9, which is 1.78:1. If the other poster is correct and the resolution should have been 848x480 then the aspect ratio is the same as a widescreen TV.

      Unless you're from the US and believe the TV company marketing over there that says high definition, widescreen, and digital are all terms that can be used interchangeably.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:848 x 400? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Widescreen describes the aspect ratio, not the number of pixels. So yes, it's widescreen.

    4. Re:848 x 400? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Okay, I stand corrected. So it is widescreen. Just shitty widescreen.

    5. Re:848 x 400? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      No, it's widescreen. Period. Shitty widescreen would be a tad wider than 4:3.

  37. Painting Roofs White by rampant+poodle · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Why not go all the way and paint them with aluminum paint, (like we have done in the American southwest for, oh, 60 years or so). Big payback in required cooling. Equally big difference in heat absorbed by the BIQ, (Building In Question). This increase in albedo, (due to cities where forests used to be), was the driving force behind the OMFG Ice Age in he 1970s. Maybe it will help with the current global warming fad as well.

    1. Re:Painting Roofs White by longhairedgnome · · Score: 0

      Dude, this isn't the tree-hugging paint-your-roof-white and save a seal thread, this is the little laser projector thread.

      --
      GENERATION O98346: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and remove a random number from the generation. T
  38. Sure... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Just add a few extra zeros to the price. Five should cover it, but you might want to have that sixth zero in reserve for contingency. :-)

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  39. Sharks with lasers. ur doin it wrong. by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 3, Funny

    I see this as the perfect solution. Now all I need is the problem to solve.
    Perhaps if I coupled this with an iPod and beer the problems would present themselves.

    --
    I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
  40. 10 lumens! by NeedleSurfer · · Score: 1

    Don't believe the flash
    don't
    don't
    don't believe the flash

    seriously, 10 lumens, with all lights off in a closet it might be ok...

    OMG!!!

    Portable porn projector!

  41. Two words: Laser Safety. by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

    OTOH, if they were mains powered, I could buy one legally, whereas this would be classed as a laser pointer over 1mW, and thus be banned under weapons laws.

  42. At least $200 by PeeShootr · · Score: 1

    The article says that it could cost AT LEAST $200.
    I'm not sure what kind of crappy journalism that is.... The author might as well have just said we have no idea how much it will cost, but it will certainly not be free.

  43. DIY Laser Image Projector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make your own:

    http://www.instructables.com/id/Laser-Image-Projector/

  44. Speckle? by cnosh · · Score: 1

    Laser light seems wrong for this type of application. Images produced by laser light inevitably suffer from speckle (speckle is one of the hallmarks of laser light). I'd think having speckle patterns overlaying everything would make the images very annoying to watch, and probably degrade the resolution as well. Maybe they've dealt with this? Though that's hard to believe. Wouldn't they be better off with LEDs?

    1. Re:Speckle? by PacoBell · · Score: 1

      Maybe they've dealt with this?

      They have.

  45. Now if there just was a girl with a.... by motherpusbucket · · Score: 1

    water cooled vibratory waveguide receptacle in her pocket.

    --
    "You can't really dust for vomit" --Nigel Tufnel
  46. implications by GregNorc · · Score: 1

    If it's 840x480 and ~400 bucks now, imagine what they'll be like in a year or two.
    Can you imagina a netbook with a relatively small screen, but that you can dim the lights and instantly have a 24' screen projected on the wall?

    1. Re:implications by GameMaster · · Score: 1

      Hrm, either they'll be 1080p, 120hz, and $200 or they'll be a distant memory because no-one bought the initial product and the company isn't big enough to ram it through a bad generation or two like the bug guys can.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
  47. BETTER TECHNOLOGIES OUT THERE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dont understand why Microvision gets so much press. (Possibly b/c they spend more on generating hype than creating a worthy product).

    Their technology isn't the best out there...

  48. Use it with the Virtual Keyboard!!! by progliberty · · Score: 1

    Holy cow! All we need to do is have this working with the virtual keyboard ( http://www.virtual-laser-keyboard.com/ ), and we have a computer that has input/output devices that are mostly light!