Forget LCDs and LEDs, Here Come LPDs

waderoush writes "It's not every day you hear about a brand new display technology, but San Jose, CA-based Prysm came out of stealth mode yesterday to talk about its plans for manufacturing laser phosphor displays, or LPDs. The new devices, which the company will show off at the Integrated Systems Europe trade show in Amsterdam next month, reportedly use 25 percent as much electricity as equivalently-sized LCD screens. And they should be easier to manufacture too, since they don't have a backplane of transistors like LCD screens: the image is generated by a laser beam that sweeps across phosphor stripes under the control of a scanning mirror. The venture-funded startup, which plans to build and sell LPD screens under its own brand, is promoting them as a low-cost, low-maintenance way to display information in lobbies, airports, broadcast studios, command centers, and the like."

Comments

How Thick is the Display?

[eldavojohn]

And they should be easier to manufacture too, since they don't have a backplane of transistors like LCD screens: the image is generated by a laser beam that sweeps across phosphor stripes under the control of a scanning mirror.

Of all the information I can find, no one is addressing the thickness of the display unit. I'm not saying it can't be done in close quarters but I'm basically inquiring how thick the unit must be in order for a laser beam to sweep across the phospher stripes that comprise the screen? Are we talking about moving back towards the sizes of back projector displays? Because it might not matter how efficient or awesome the picture display is to the consumer.

I guess that might explain why they're targeting airports and malls and not your living room.

I believe this particular patent image illustrates what I'm wondering about (Roger Hajjar is one of Prysm's founders).

CA-based Prysm came out of stealth mode yesterday

No one can fly under the radar when they need to patent their invention:
Laser displays using UV-excitable phosphors emitting visible colored light
Laser vector scanner systems with display screens having optical fluorescent materials
Optical designs for scanning beam display systems using fluorescent screens
Phosphor Compositions For Scanning Beam Displays

Prysm's founders (Amit Jain and Roger Hajjar) have had their names on quite a few display related patents since 2005. I'm excited a small startup can enter this market but I'm skeptical of the marketability due to the one drawback: a step backwards in compactness and style.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[Zediker]

They shouldnt be any worse than the existing DLP displays which are quite thin since they both utilize similar technology: scanning micro mirrors.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[mea37]

At the end of TFA, they claim that conceptually it would work for a laptop display; so it must be pretty thin. The reason to target big displays before worrying about home TV's seems to be that the cost of manufacture is less an issue there. Until they can do relatively cheap mass-production, they won't be able to address the TV market.

Also, the headline notwithstanding, this may face tough competition in the TV market from advances in LED-type displays.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[ari_j]

If they can find a market where energy efficiency is more important than thickness and durability (another issue that I would be concerned about in anything with moving parts, mirrors, etc.), then they should be able to do alright with their product. I am just not sure I can think of a market where durability is less important than energy efficiency.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[natehoy]

Yeah, but cost is also a factor in a lot of cases, and this could well be an acceptable compromise for a lot of people.

These are supposedly a lot cheaper to manufacture and draw a lot less power, so if you are willing to put up with something that has some depth, you may be able to skip the 55 inch screen and go straight to 70 inches for the same money, and lower long-term costs of operation. Or get that 55-inch screen and have $800 left to buy a whole lot of movies to play on it.

A lot of people still have CRT or back-projection televisions. Something like this could appeal to those people, because they are already used to their TV having some depth anyway, and you can get them to high def in an affordable way. I have to imagine a laser projection could at least be slimmer than a CRT.

Plus, CRTs are HEAVY in addition to being bulky. It sounds like something like this would be a box filled with mostly air, so it's at least easier to move around.

Actually, if you made 4 lasers (or 1 laser with a very clever series of 4 mirrors), each one could be responsible for 1/4 of the screen and you'd end up with something shallower than a 1-laser rig. 16 lasers or mirrors would make it shallower still. But then you're starting to draw as much power as an LCD and manufacturing costs are probably as high or higher. So there are adaptations to this technology that could make them slimmer, if you're willing to pay for them, and if you don't apply them to the point you are exceeding the cost of LCD.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[rodrigoandrade]

FTFA:

Moreover, Prysm's LPD screens--which the startup plans to manufacture at a plant in Concord, MA--can be built in any size or shape, from square tiles to long, <b>thin ribbons</b>, meaning they could turn up almost anywhere someone

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[rodrigoandrade]

Yeah, I meant to bold THIN RIBBONS.

Is that THIN enough for you??

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[Angst Badger]

It's a bigger step backwards than you might think. There were big screen TV systems attempted long before color TV that used essentially the same setup, but using beams of ordinary light instead of lasers. They actually worked surprisingly well for the electromechanical kludges that they were, aside from the size issue. In fact, the degree of similarity is enough, IMHO, to count as prior art.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[Funnnny]

According to the paragraph, "We can make it as big as you can imagine", I think it'll bigger than CRTs

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[vlm]

I am just not sure I can think of a market where durability is less important than energy efficiency.

Greenwashing market.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[ravenshrike]

Interestingly, that only means one of it's dimensions has to be thin. Which would probably be H, although in certain asian countries L would be more popular to use. D isn't necessarily affected.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[stevew]

Well - I designed what would be portion 320 in the diagram, the image modulation system for a scanning LED TV. The first problem was that LEDs were too dim at the time. The lasers in this system against a phosphor take care of that issue. The second issue you have is what is called the pin-cushion effect. As you scan the laser over the surface of the rotating polygon, it will tend to modulate the length of the scanline making the picture look like a pin cushion. I had a way to fix this in the modulation controller - can't talk about HOW to fix it ;-) Just know that is a pretty big problem to overcome.

Once you have a method to overcome the pin-cushion effect, then you need to have to have a way to align the TVs in production (another REAL headache I didn't come up with a solution for..but then we only got to the prototype stage so didn't have to face that issue.)

Finally - there is the issue of NOISE. Rotating mirrors can be REALLY loud. Our prototype sounded like a jet engine when we spooled up the motors. The precision optics are also expensive. The mechanical engineers believed they could build a much quieter mirror assembly - maybe with air bearings.

So there are a lot of real - practical - tough design problems with this approach.

Finally - I expect it to be a relatively BIG TV.

It's a neat technology - but I don't believe there is any market for it.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[Creepy]

my first thought was I'd need to care about VSYNC and HSYNC again. It wouldn't need to be as big as old CRTs - those use an electron gun and electromagnets to move the beam - all they need is some way for the laser to target each pixel on the phosphor at a suitable speed.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[Lord Lode]

Would you draw more power with 16 lasers? Each laser needs to cover only 1/16th of the area so theoretically also 1/16th of the power (for the same overall brightness).

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[caladine]

Quite thin? Every DLP TV I find listed is at least 10 inches thick, if not more. Check out the Mitsubishi models. While most are huge (and cheap for the size) they are anything but thin.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[mattcasters]

Why artificially limit yourself to a single laser? In fact the patent application (eldavojohn's post) mentions "laser arrays with N lasers".

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[Rogerborg]

Prysm's LPD screens

The screen, not the whole system. This is a projector system. The question is, and remains, how much separation is required between the projector and the screen?

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[jcr]

It has to be far enough back to reach all edges.

No, it just has to have some mirror arrangement that allows it to reach the whole screen. I don't see any reason why the laser has to strike the phosphor at anything close to a perpendicular alignment.

-jcr

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[hitmark]

would MEMS mirrors fix most of that?

i think there as a projector the size of a deck of cards showed of at CES that used lasers and a MEMS system to project the image.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[natehoy]

Don't know, it was just an off-the-cuff theory as to how to optimize the technology and make it thinner.

I suspect 16 lasers could at least each scan at 1/16 the speed of a single laser, but brightness loss in a laser is far from linear, so I don't think you could drop the power to 1/16 per laser.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[JoeMerchant]

Strikes me that we're back to the scanning electron gun, but this time it's photons... there will be a "whirr" from the scanning mirrors, otherwise it sounds like a reasonable idea - just need to put the phosphor on a reasonably rigid substrate and you're good to go. They'll never be as thin (or flexible) as my current LED backlit notebook screen.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[Silicon Jedi]

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Mitsubishi+-+60%22+Class+1080p+Rear+Projection+DLP+HDTV/9487192.p;jsessionid=8D252B7ED6DD1A88A0DF15E6F9B7001B.bbolsp-app03-37?id=1218112691007&skuId=9487192

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[cool_story_bro]

I don't see any reason why the laser has to strike the phosphor at anything close to a perpendicular alignment.

The angle at which the beam strikes the phosphor would determine the shape of the intersecting region, which may be difficult to correct for. However, a small mirror near each "pixel" that redirected the beam straight at the phosphor would likely correct the situation without taking up too much extra space.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[MoonBuggy]

It does sound like a fairly sensible idea, although the article doesn't appear (from my admittedly quick glance) to mention refresh rates or resolutions, which both become more significant issues in computer monitors than airport info displays.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[mea37]

Interesting assertions.

DLP sets use moving components, often including a rotating "color wheel". I've never heard of an audible "whir" being a problem there, so I'll hold off on speculating whether there would be one here.

I also know of no reason the screen couldn't be as thin as a notebook LED. I would think the laser's beam thickness would be the limiting factor (since it would govern how shallow an angle the beam could use to approach the screen without spilling across pixels).

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[camperdave]

The electron beam didn't have to strike the phosphor at anything close to a perpendicular alignment in a CRT either, yet thick they were.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[Garble Snarky]

Honest question: what exactly is a "beam of ordinary light"?

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[default luser]

It can be as thin as you want, because the system is done with lasers and mirrors.

This is just a CRT screen where they have replaced the scanning electron gun with a laser, but you don't realize how revolutionary that is until you think about how this changes packaging: in the CRT you need a big magnet to steer the electron stream, but in this new system you need a tiny mirror (think MEMS), which will really cut-down the package size. Also, you probably don't need to contain the laser path in a vacuum like the CRT electron beam, so that will make manufacturing cheaper.

I'm really hoping this will have all the benefits of regular CRTs, only smaller, since SED never got off the ground.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[wagnerrp]

That's because each color only has to be hit once per frame. Usually, they cycle through each color multiple times, but each color appears multiple times on a wheel, so you're still in the tens to hundreds RPM range. Compare that with a 1080p60 scanning display, which would be running at 65k RPM.

On the other hand, they could play games with it like having a multi-faceted mirror, hitting it with multiple lasers at different angles, using multiple mirrors with multiple lasers or a splitter, etc...

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[CityZen]

Looks like this would compete with Microvision's products.
Microvision uses a 2-axis MEMS scanner, so noise is not an issue.
Also, why use phosphors if the lasers are already RGB?
Must be an issue of efficiency, I gather.
I can't see the Prysm product as filling anything but a niche.

Having a patterned screen would require convergence calibration with the beam. This could be automated with a camera feedback system, but that adds expense. This is also why it can't practically use a DMD driver: you can calibrate a swept beam just by changing the timing. You can't calibrate a DMD in the same way, since the mirrors are just bistable (2 position only).

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[Pinky's Brain]

Precision optics seem like overkill to me ... all that shit with f-theta lenses and optical correction of pin-cushions seems so ... archaic.

As long as the distortion is static and a sufficient maximum distance between lines is maintained you can just correct it digitally can't you? Transistors are cheap nowadays, really really cheap, hardware to perform an image warp on a HD signal is pennies worth of die space on an ASIC (in volume, the million dollar mask costs have to be earned back first of course).

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[omnichad]

Well, getting rid of the lead faraday cage on the front and using thinner glass would make them quite a bit more portable.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[TheLink]

One that doesn't produce "Do not look at beam with remaining eye" jokes.

Just a lame attempt at light humour ;).

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[mea37]

I think you might want to double check your math. Even if 1 revolution of the wheel per frame were typical (it's not), that would still be 1800RMP.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[Abreu]

Thanks for the link.

So, 15 inches thick is not bad for a 60-inch TV, but its definitely not ready for laptops...

(I may be biased here, all my TVs are still CRTs)

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[JoeMerchant]

My current display is approximately 3/16" thick, and it will bend up to 1/2" if you push it - so, I'm reasonably certain that the laser and mirror arrangement won't do that. Whirr is in the ears of the beholder - not a problem on a notebook that already runs a wind tunnel past the processor(s), but I'm kind of a silent freak in my living room, any noise is more than what my current LCD TV produces.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[Toonol]

Size might not be as much of a problem as weight, and this laser might not need the hundreds of pounds of vacuum-sealed glass, lead, and other supporting paraphernalia that old CRTs required. Probably not as fashionable as a flatscreen, but not as clunky as an old television. If it offered some of the benefits that LCDs don't, like truly flexible display resolutions, it might still be worthwhile.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[JoeMerchant]

Re: both refresh rate and resolution, if you want more, just add money (additional laser/scanners with nasty alignment issues, etc.)

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[gyrogeerloose]

A lot of people still have CRT or back-projection televisions. Something like this could appeal to those people, because they are already used to their TV having some depth anyway, and you can get them to high def in an affordable way.

Exactly right--I'm one of those people. I still have a 36" CRT TV set and because it's placed diagonally in a corner of the room on top of all my home theater audio gear, depth will not a be a big concern to me when it comes time to replace it with an HDTV. Lower cost certainly will be, however. If this new display design actually amounts to something in the consumer, I could very well be the type of customer you've mentioned.

Plus, CRTs are HEAVY in addition to being bulky.

Boy, you got the heavy part right! It takes two people to move my TV safely. The sucker weighs pretty close to 200 pounds.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[gyrogeerloose]

If this new display design actually amounts to something in the consumer,

That should have read: If this new display design actually amounts to something in the consumer marketplace,

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[cyberbrian]

According to: http://www.prysm.com/about_lpd.html
The technique uses an array of solid state laser diodes.

So...it sounds like the system will not require a large depth, since there is not a single laser trying to excite all phosphors on the display.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[shadow349]

The thinnest DLPs are (were) 7" deep. I've had one wall mounted for a little over 4 years now.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[jonbryce]

They don't like having to landfill their TV more often.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[Angst Badger]

"Ordinary" light in this case is incoherent light, i.e., light in which the individual waves are not synchronized with each other, either by being out of phase or being of different wavelengths, usually both. This is the kind of light that comes from most light sources. Laser light is coherent: it's (mostly) all one wavelength and the peaks and troughs of the waves are all synchronized.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[natehoy]

For a moment, you had me worried. That's a rather large TV to have surgically implanted. :)

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[theskipper]

This article says about 5.5"" thick:

http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/is-lpd-the-next-lcd/

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[wiredlogic]

The back surface of the image plane doesn't have to be flat. There could be ridges molded in place to reflect/refract the laser into the phosphors.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[wzzzzrd]

Of all the information I can find, no one is addressing the thickness of the display unit.

Pft, who cares. It consumes less energy and produces better (moving) pictures. That's what counts. The other properties are not as important, if the first two deliver.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[Carnildo]

You can't steer an electron beam with a mirror. You need magnets, and those can't generate sharp turns.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[Carnildo]

You can avoid any whirr by tuning the speeds of the scanning mirrors. Make the vertical-scan mirror a ten-sided mirror, and you can spin it at 6 Hz for a 60Hz refresh rate, too low-pitched to hear. Make the horizontal-scan mirror two-sided, and you'll be spinning it faster than 20KHz (the actual speed depends on the refresh rate and resolutions, but it'll always be too high-pitched to hear).

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[aztracker1]

This sounds to me a lot like DLP, but with "friggin lasers". I think that for larger displays, that DLP is probably a better, and less costly option. I'm actually upset that for larger screens DLP's market share has actually shrunk, as it is a really good display technology.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[camperdave]

You don't need to generate a sharp turn. The SONY Watchman FD-210 used a flat CRT where the display was "parallel" to the electron beam.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[gyrogeerloose]

Yeah. And hard to implant anywhere you could watch it yourself--at least, not without a mirror.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[wgoodman]

the number of lasers has nothing to do with the brightness, just how fast the mirrors would have to be. how would 1 laser scanning the entire surface have to be any brighter than 16 lasers, each scanning 1/16th of the surface? They're still only hitting any given pixel once per frame.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[jellomizer]

Compared to CRT they are. Not to LCD or Plasma, or LED.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[kvap]

Can somebody do a search on "sharks" in those laser patents? They might have something here!

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[SnappyCrunch]

The color wheel isn't audible on DLP displays because it's drowned out by the large fan needed to cool the lamp.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[wagnerrp]

You're right, I meant to say 'per second' rather than 'per minute', which would absolutely require a multi-faceted mirror (with several dozen sides). You couldn't structurally spin anywhere near 4M RPM.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[jibjibjib]

They were thick because in a CRT the limitations of the focusing and bending magnets prevent you from pointing the electron beam in an arbitrary direction. With a laser and a mirror this isn't as true.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[Agripa]

Also, why use phosphors if the lasers are already RGB?

Lasers by themselves lack persistence which the phosphors can provide.

Having a patterned screen would require convergence calibration with the beam.

I thought this to be a much larger problem then correcting for the inherent pincushion distortion. Offhand, I suspect there are some techniques from astronomy (phase conjugation?) which would allow the beam to read back its position on the screen so that convergence could be maintained. Unfortunately their laser is unlikely to be coherent over the distances involved but it should still be possible.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[camperdave]

They were thick because in a CRT the limitations of the focusing and bending magnets prevent you from pointing the electron beam in an arbitrary direction. With a laser and a mirror this isn't as true.

Except it isn't true with a CRT either. SONY makes (or at least made) CRTs where the electron gun is pointing up from below the screen. Tosho Electronics makes them as well.

Re:How Thick is the Display?

[JasonTik]

Good thing the article is talking about photons, not electrons.

Argh

[Angst Badger]

I had a similar idea, only instead of a scanning mirror, I was going to use chunks of neutronium to bend the light beams. I've had a little trouble sourcing the materials, though...

Re:Argh

[Chrisq]

Never mind, when I get my idea for a warp drive going it should be simple. I just have to come up with an antigravity device, a tractor beam and a zero-point energy device to power it and sourcing neutronium will be easy.

Alternatively CERN probably have a few containers of that, right next to their antimatter containers. Give them a call and they'll probably pop over in their scramjet spaceplane and let you have a few tonnes.

Re:Argh

[Angst Badger]

Excellent point! If I was feeling exceptionally snarky, I'd call FedEx and ask them for their freight rates in Earth masses.

Re:Argh

[jollyreaper]

I had a similar idea, only instead of a scanning mirror, I was going to use chunks of neutronium to bend the light beams. I've had a little trouble sourcing the materials, though...

I had a similar idea for a practical application of Steve Jobs' reality distortion field but when I got close to a solution I encountered painful spaghettification and had to abandon my research.

Re:Argh

[Technomonics]

Why not use Unobtanium? Sure, it is more expensive right now but I have assurances we have located a tremendous cache of this on another planet. We should be able to mine it once we get rid of the pesky vegetation.

Re:Argh

[Angst Badger]

I thought about that, but I've got too much sunk into futures of Handwavium right now.

Re:Argh

[omnichad]

Bah, why not use huge electromagnets around the laser tube to bend the light beams. Now you nearly have a CRT television that works with lasers.

Re:Argh

[Chrisq]

You really ought to commit to coming back in time and giving yourself a time machine now when you invent it. This will obviously save the problem of designing one, you will have a design from the future - which will of course have come from the one passed back to you.

Good one!

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's not every day you hear about a brand new display technology"

And to this I say: good one, you funny guy!

do not want

[drinkypoo]

guaranteed to be thicker than LED or LCD, and with phosphor delay; I want LED so that I can have [effectively] instant transitions. we can get back the delay effect with processing, but you can't eliminate phosphor delays when you've got phosphors.

Re:do not want

[A Friendly Troll]

guaranteed to be thicker than LED or LCD, and with phosphor delay; I want LED so that I can have [effectively] instant transitions. we can get back the delay effect with processing, but you can't eliminate phosphor delays when you've got phosphors.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like we'll see OLED any time soon. It still has longevity issues and burn-in is nasty. We'll see what happens 3-4 years from now, but as far as computer monitors are concerned, I don't think OLED is viable... So we're stuck with poor LCDs.

Re:do not want

[Abcd1234]

WTF... there was a time when people didn't want to move to LCD because of motion blur issues, problems that CRTs, a phosphor-based technology, didn't have. Now you're saying the exact opposite is the case? *boggle*

Re:do not want

[JoeMerchant]

As a company, they're targeting the deep pocket markets (big displays - really big from the sound of the article). I don't read anything particularly expensive in their description, maybe the high power laser (or the fact that they're manufacturing in Massachusetts), for now they're touting low energy to operate and component longevity as their value-adds.

In other words, the investors don't give a damn about selling you an inexpensive display for your peasant self.

Re:do not want

[ubersoldat2k7]

Well, LCD's are costing less and less, and with technologies like Pixel Qi which extend on LCDs, I think we're gonna be using LCDs (on computers) for some time.

Re:do not want

[rezalas]

OLED won't be here any time soon, you are right, but only because it is already here on the market. OLED can now be found in cell phones, MP3 players, in-dash displays, and televisions already being sold to the public. While the price is high, the quality of these displays is definitely worth it for the early adopter type. Just google 'OLED display' and you'll see a few of the better options already on the market (though for the TVs the price is steep).

Re:do not want

[Jesus_666]

OTOH, with time LPDs may just mean the return of the affordable TrueColor screen. With current non-CRT displays you need to shell out quite a bit of money if you want a monitor that actually supports 24 bpp.

Re:do not want

[Hurricane78]

What? Of course CRTs have motion blur issues. Just because they have no fixed pixel grid, it does not look that bad.
I dare you to take any CRT out there, set the background to black and the mouse cursor to white, and then move the cursor around quickly. You will always see shadows of where the mouse was the last couple of times. (No, that is not the mouse trail function.)

Re:do not want

[Abcd1234]

What? Of course CRTs have motion blur issues. Just because they have no fixed pixel grid, it does not look that bad.

And is the effect sufficiently noticeable to disqualify this tech? I highly doubt it, given how prized CRTs were amongst the gaming crowd, among others, until LCDs improved sufficiently to displace them.

Re:do not want

[pz]

guaranteed to be thicker than LED or LCD, and with phosphor delay; I want LED so that I can have [effectively] instant transitions. we can get back the delay effect with processing, but you can't eliminate phosphor delays when you've got phosphors.

There is essentially zero phosphor delay (I defy you to measure it ... I am a visual neuroscientist and have, so yes, it is possible, and no, it is not easy) on the scale of perceptual latencies. I believe the latency from excitation to phosphor emission is on the nanosecond scale. The typical perceptual delays in the early visual system (retina and the first few stages of processing in the brain) are on order of 30 milliseconds, going from the time photons enter the eye to the first wave of activity in primary visual cortex. Different orders of magnitude. Like 6. Phosphor delay is irrelevant.

What you are perhaps thinking of is the phosphor DECAY which is another thing entirely. When phosphors are excited (such as by an impinging electron or photon beam) the emitted brightness steps up almost instantaneously and then decays down through an exponential relaxation curve. That decay time can tend to blur images when too long, or induce eye bleed (to use the vernacular) when the update rate is too low. The thing is that phosphor decays can be adjusted by reformulating the compounds, and are determined ultimately at time of manufacturing. Very fast phosphors are available to support KHz updates, but also very slow ones (some older oscilloscopes have phosphor decay constants measured in seconds).

Contemporary LCD monitors have typically 2 or 3 frames of latency because of the push to get faster transition times. Those 5 ms response time LCDs get fast specs by overdriving the pixels in a highly controlled fashion, but one that requires knowing what is on the next handful of frames. Since we live in a causal world, that means introducing a 2-3 frame latency for processing within the display. Since the update rates on LCDs are typically 60 Hz, that's on order of 45 ms latency, a non-trivial fraction of the loop from visual perception to motor action (known in the gaming vernacular as twitch response). If you're watching a movie, that latency is irrelevant and wholly, entirely unperceived. If you're playing a game, then it is very important.

Re:do not want

[modecx]

we can get back the delay effect with processing, but you can't eliminate phosphor delays when you've got phosphors.

Bull. It really depends on the phosphors they decide to use, but there are R/G/B phosphors with decay times which handily beat even the fastest production LCD response times. I'm not sure why they're messing around with phosphors and shit though--a backlit RGB laser display system would be uber-cool.

As someone who works with color (I expect an RGB raster laser system can have excellent color gamut), if they can make it happen at a halfway reasonable price, I'll jump ship yesterday. I don't care how thick it is.

Re:do not want

[Abcd1234]

And my point is that with modern CRT, you *still* don't see any blur (or so little as it doesn't matter). See the other poster at the same level as mine for a little information about phosphor decay rates. It's simply not an issue. The OP is, IMHO, just inventing something to complain about.

Re:do not want

[A Friendly Troll]

I meant for computer monitors. It's not likely to happen, unless miracles happen with the technology itself.

If you take a look at existing OLED screens, they are all used in devices that don't display a static picture 8+ hours a day. Buy an OLED TV, use it as a computer monitor, and watch it get ruined quickly. According to some people, the burn-in is worse than with early plasma screens.

Re:do not want

[ArundelCastle]

Agreed. My question is how can there be a sweeping laser without having screen flicker? Especially with a mechanical mirror in the mix.
I thought we were done with headache inducing refresh rates? Hopefully the frequency noise is avoided.

Is the main difference between laser and cathode ray in the use of magnetism vs. mirrors? That would mean the laser beam generators can be snugly parallel to the screen and then reflected? TFA is more like an entertainment piece, so more info on the comparative tech is appreciated.

Re:do not want

[Pinky's Brain]

Delay? That's not how the phosphors on high refresh rate CRTs work at all anymore ... they basically just flash (intensity falls off by a factor 1000 within a msec). You can engineer phosphors without afterglow at all. Long afterglow phosphors are from the early days of TVs ... "modern" CRT monitors are basically strobes (which is ideal for motion perception ... capture and hold blurs, regardless of the transition speed).

Re:do not want

[timeOday]

On the other hand, projection systems excel in the area of SIZE, and size does matter.

Re:do not want

[omnichad]

well there's certainly a DELAY in the DECAY. Just saying...

Re:do not want

[Abcd1234]

Agreed. My question is how can there be a sweeping laser without having screen flicker? Especially with a mechanical mirror in the mix.
I thought we were done with headache inducing refresh rates? Hopefully the frequency noise is avoided.

The only way refresh rates would result in headaches is if the rate is low enough to be above the threshold of perception (60hz or so for most people). For those who claim that they could see it on higher rates, it was probably due to interference with overhead lighting (remember, flourescent lights flicker at the cycle frequency of mains power, which just happens to be 60hz in North America).

I mean, how many people complained about headaches due to flicker from Avatar? Because that movie flashed each left/right image at 72hz for each eye.

thickness

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably wont get much thinner than 5"-6" but some of us don't care much about depth. All else being equal, if it's price is lower and it uses 1/4 the electricity, I'm interested.

Similar idea

[Walterk]

I had a similar idea once, except using electrons instead of lasers. It also required a vacuum tube for the electrons to travel through. I called it the Fluorescent Electron Cathode Konduit, or FECK for short. After considering it a while, I thought the concept was rather ludicrious and without merit, so abandoned it.

Command Centers

[Shadowruni]

Screw a command center, though whenever I'm evaluating a new display tech that IS the first thing that comes to mind.

I'm waiting on my transparent screen that displays XXXGA graphics and yet somehow I don't get distracted by everything happening BEHIND the screen. (

Looks cool on screen but just like Gorilla arms from Minority Report, I think it wouldn't really be practical unless you....)

Re:Command Centers

[BronsCon]

If it was displaying XXX graphics, I doubt you'd be distracted by ANYTHING else going on.

Re:Command Centers

[sexconker]

Looks cool on screen but just like Gorilla arms from Minority Report, I think it wouldn't really be practical unless you...

Unless you... have a thetan level that's OVER 9000!!! ?

Re:Command Centers

[camperdave]

I think many people are waiting for transparent displays that show XXX graphics.

"Command centers"

[ewg]

About time! I'm sick of the lackluster displays in my command center.

Re:"Command centers"

[sexconker]

A proper command center display has knobs instead of buttons, is 3 feet deep and 6 inches square on the face and back, and is amber on black, or green on slightly darker green.

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, what is an LPD screen you can buy today? Can you give me a link? I am curious what it is.

phosphor burn?

[AmericanGladiator]

I didn't see any mention in the article - will it have this horrible weakness that CRTs had?

Re:phosphor burn?

[vlm]

I didn't see any mention in the article - will it have this horrible weakness that CRTs had?

Well, the HV supply for my old CRTs is a couple watts, my LCD backlight displays are a couple watts, I'm guessing this thing will require a couple watt laser for equal brightness. So if the scanning mirror jams in one spot, a couple dozen focused watts will burn a hole clean thru the screen, not just discolor the phosphor. That'll be exciting.

Re:phosphor burn?

[Rogerborg]

So when the scanning mirror jams in one spot, a couple dozen focused watts will burn a hole clean thru my eyeball

Fixed that for you. Excellent point.

Re:phosphor burn?

[jcr]

I'm guessing this thing will require a couple watt laser for equal brightness.

No. A couple watts is what you use to burn things. A couple of milliwatts would suffice for this application.

-jcr

Re:phosphor burn?

[Mashiki]

You didn't need that eye anyway.

Re:phosphor burn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Phosphor burn is massively overstated. I'm still using the same 19" Hitachi I got in 1997 as my regular computer monitor and there's zero evidence of phosphor burn. It's also still bright enough to use under bright fluorescent lighting (and more than bright enough to use in a dungeon environment).

Re:phosphor burn?

[Crudely_Indecent]

That shouldn't be an issue because the weight of electrons is greater than the weight of photons.

You see, photons are light.

Re:phosphor burn?

[ceoyoyo]

I don't have time to do the math at the moment, but don't forget you have to scan the thing, which means you need a brighter laser. On the other hand, I can't think of a reason why the energy deposition should be any higher than it would be for the electron beam in a CRT.

Re:phosphor burn?

[JoeMerchant]

Re:phosphor burn?

Depends, if phosphor burn was due to constant electron pummeling and photons are gentler, then maybe not. I suspect they will have some effect, though - especially if they're achieving high brightness on static high contrast displays.

Re:phosphor burn?

[noidentity]

Phosphor burn a horrible weakness of CRTs?!? Maybe for projection CRTs, but those run at insane brightness. I've never had burned phosphors on any of my CRTs.

I'm wondering about focus and geometry issues, the main problems I have with CRTs. Please, let's not go back to any kind of scan-the-dot-across-the-screen systems that can become misaligned.

Re:phosphor burn?

[pmontra]

Good, so screensavers will get again a real reason to exist.

Re:phosphor burn?

[mcgrew]

I didn't RTFA but I thought of a laser-driven TV quite a while back. I don't understand why they would phosphors at all. It seems that with three different colored lasers they could simply use translucent glass.

Thinking about it, though, it's probably because the lasers don't produce light of the right colors to combine realistically.

However, I've seen phosphor burn on computer displays, particularly ATM machines, but I've never seen a TV affacted like that, except really old ones, and in that case the picture just gets dimmer, and you can adjust the strength of the electron guns to compensate. Old TVs had knobs on the back to adjust the guns' strength.

Re:phosphor burn?

[Overzeetop]

There is a direct laser version, but I think blue yields are still too expensive. The laser version is a projected display tech (like DLP), but uses a scanning mirror and a 1D array of MEMS mirrors - kind of like DLP but with the mirrors on one axis instead of a 2D array.

Phosphor burn is a real problem in static displays (like the command centers in TFA, which I didn't read). With the popularity of TV logos and scrolling news bars, it's a real issue on all phosphor based devices, like CRTs and plasmas (PDPs). Non-native aspect ratio content can be an issue too, with the pillarbox or letterbox bars shadowed on CRTs. My 5 year old CRT rear projection TV has pillarbox shadow lines despite using gray pillarbox bars. It's not bad but with more 16:9 content now I notice it.

Re:phosphor burn?

[mcgrew]

With the popularity of TV logos and scrolling news bars, it's a real issue on all phosphor based devices

Those are so new I'd forgotten about them. I yearn for the old days of cable when they didn't have those stupid logos, let alone those damned commercials within the content like the History Channel does. God, that annoys me.

You're right, those would burn in.

Re:phosphor burn?

[vlm]

No. A couple watts is what you use to burn things. A couple of milliwatts would suffice for this application.

I don't know about that... A couple mW focused on a tiny little spot looks pretty bright. Smeared across a couple square feet, not so good. To see what I'm saying, look at a nice bright laserpointer on a screen, then shine the laser thru a lens to smear a big splotch across the screen.

If it magically the big area was as bright as the small spot, then you could shine upon a couple solar panels, use one panel to power the laser, and sell the power from the other panels. Perpetual motion/power, sort of.

I would imagine a mW laser would light up an entire room about as well as any other mW class light source...

Re:phosphor burn?

[noidentity]

Hmmm, I forgot the one reason I still prefer CRTs for some things: truely variable resolution. Horizontally, it's continuous by nature. Vertically, the scanline spacing is continuously adjustable. But you know that this will probably have a fixed resolution, with other input resolutions resampled in the digital domain, thus looking like crap.

Re:phosphor burn?

[ChrisMaple]

50 years ago, before CRT glass was greatly improved, TVs had a separate sheet of glass in front of the CRT to protect the CRT from impacts. After a number of years, if you took the glass sheet off, you could see where it had turned grey from the impact of xrays from the CRT.

Re:phosphor burn?

[omnichad]

Terrible flicker is why. Phosphor has a slower decay rate, so that the pixel stays lit while it waits for the laser to come by on its next pass.

Re:phosphor burn?

[mcgrew]

Wow, you're older than me. I was only seven 50 years ago.

Re:phosphor burn?

[toddestan]

Well, if you assume a display with 2 million pixels, and a 60hz refresh rate, that means the laser will be lighting up each pixel on the order of 10ns per scan. So yes, it's going to have to be pretty bright.

Re:phosphor burn?

[jcr]

Smeared across a couple square feet, not so good.

This is a couple of square feet of a phosphor-coated surface that's going to have a bias voltage, not a back-projection screen.

-jcr

Mitsubishi LaserVue

[ArhcAngel]

How is this better than Mitsubishi's LaserVue technology? It's basically a laser DLP to phosphor opposed to whatever material is used by Mitsubishi for a standard DLP screen. It even looks like the LaserVue uses less power than this.

Re:Mitsubishi LaserVue

[JoeMerchant]

I suspect your answer lies in the respective patent portfolios - and my guess is that the new guys have a phosphor formulation that works at high brightness levels, which would not be suited to living room use, or consumer price points.

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?

[rsborg]

So is this a new technology or is this the same as the LPD screens you can buy today?

Perhaps you meant DLP? Not the same as LPD but agreed, it will be confusing.

Ouch

[idiotnot]

Lasers+moving mirror == great reliability! Have a feeling these are going to make DLP or LCD lamp replacement look downright economical. Still prefer Plasma, personally, but the LED/LCD my SO's dad bought isn't horrible. Even at 240Hz, I did still notice some streaking, though (watching a football game).

Re:Ouch

[iangoldby]

Lasers+moving mirror == great reliability! Have a feeling these are going to make DLP or LCD lamp replacement look downright economical.

DLP projectors also work by moving mirrors. There's no real reason why a scanning mirror need necessarily be unreliable.

Re:Ouch

[idiotnot]

Sure there is; the manufacturing process to make them sufficiently long-lifed (>~5 years), prices them outside the range of consumer gear. I used to be a broadcast engineer; $10,000 cartridge CD players from 1988 still work fine today. The $25 portable CD player you buy from Walmart likely won't last two years, much less twenty.

Re:Ouch

[McWilde]

Is there a specific type of display that will filter out naked people running across the pitch?

Re:Ouch

[jabuzz]

Really, I thought the lasers and moving mirror reliability had been fix years ago. Least I have never seen a laser printer fail due to a broken spinning mirror or laser.

Re:Ouch

[sexconker]

Even at 240Hz, I did still notice some streaking, though (watching a football game).

No you didn't. You wanted to see it so you saw it.

Any streaking you did notice would have been a result of the source and not the display. Dollars to doughnuts (or is it doughnuts to dollars in this economy?) says pa-in-law is running 1080i.

Re:Ouch

[sexconker]

It doesn't matter.

Longevity is impossible now that we're forced to use lead-free solder.

Re:Ouch

[serbanp]

There's no real reason why a scanning mirror need necessarily be unreliable.

Sure there is.

The DLP system uses the mirrors as switches. You know, ON/OFF. This "new" concept will have to precisely control the deflection angle all the time. I wonder how will they achieve this as the angular resolution and speed must be very high to not only be capable of resolve the pixels in the center of the screen but also to accommodate the pin cushion compensation...

This thing, if it's more than vaporware, will not work for in-home screens, where the distance between the mirror and the photosensitive grille is much smaller than the grille size.

Re:Ouch

[idiotnot]

The useless remains of my 12" iBook agree with you. :-/

And, addressing the AC comments, well, when it's a piece of equipment that needs man-hours for installation and subsequent replacement, combined with operational disruptions due to bad hardware, you pay more. To put it in IT terms, you can probably build something with essentially the same specs as a good HP server for a lot less money. But, when you look at TCO and incorporate expected reliability, well, that price difference evaporates quickly.

dont look at TV

[ionix5891]

with remaining eye

Sounds like an updated CRT

[erroneus]

One commenter asked the same question I am asking -- "How thick is this?" The notion of a beam or beams scanning over a phosphor surface that is treated with cells and filters? Sounds like a CRT in most respects. But to have scanning beams, there should be some distance travelled which implies some thickness issues.

Re:Sounds like an updated CRT

[fluffy99]

One commenter asked the same question I am asking -- "How thick is this?" The notion of a beam or beams scanning over a phosphor surface that is treated with cells and filters? Sounds like a CRT in most respects. But to have scanning beams, there should be some distance travelled which implies some thickness issues.

It also implies bringing back all of the alignment issues of CRTs and rear-projection TVs. This really sounds like a step backwards, regardless of any power savings (which in an LCD or LED monitor is mostly from the backlight anyway).

Re:Sounds like an updated CRT

[John Hasler]

> It also implies bringing back all of the alignment issues of CRTs and
> rear-projection TVs.

Indexed beam technology should take care of that (though it was never commercialized for CRTs). Alternatively, one could use three lasers operating at three different wavelengths and three phosphors each sensitive to one of the lasers. Still seems like a CRT with moving parts, though.

In any case, the Trinitron I'm using right now has never had any alignment problems.

Re:Sounds like an updated CRT

[DragonWriter]

It also implies bringing back all of the alignment issues of CRTs and rear-projection TVs.

It seems to methat it would also bring back the flicker issue of CRTs.

So it's a CRT ... without the CRT?

[Ihlosi]

So they took the basic idea of a CRT and replaced the electron beam with a laser and a moving mirror?

Sounds interesting, but I guess this will bring back all of the problems of a CRT (sharpness isn't guaranteed, image may flicker depending on the refresh rate, etc), plus a few new problems (mechanical parts that might be subject to wear, etc).

Re:So it's a CRT ... without the CRT?

[Lord Lode]

Yeah, they want to go back to the phosphor and sweeping beam technology? There were more things than just the thickness that I liked about LCD versus CRT's, and radiation & flickering were some of them.

Similar to LaserVue?

[RingDev]

If it is similar to Mitshibishi's LaserVue http://www.mitsubishi-tv.com/product/L65A90 a 65" display would be around 10" deep.

-Rick

Re:Hmm

[girlintraining]

"Do not break screen and stare into laser"?

"I can't let you do that, Dave."

The screen is not... it's not

[Arancaytar]

Something you can just refresh all at once. It's not a big lump of transistors.

It's a series of cathode ray tubes!

Vaguely familiar

[C9OE-6015-B8]

This is not far removed from the Scophony projection system of the 1930's.

Re:Vaguely familiar

[gregben]

And this was very interesting reading:
http://www.tvhistory.tv/1938-Scophony-UK.htm

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?

[girlintraining]

If it is new, it is unfortunate not only to reuse an acronym, but reusing one in the same domain.

There are only 17,576 three letter acronyms. We've been warning people for years of the need to upgrade to TLAv6, which allows for a wider range of three letter acronyms, including punctuation and numbers as well as unicode support. But many major buzzword providers have refused to upgrade. The last unique TLAs will be depleted within 18 months in our field. Thanks to AAT (Acronym Address Translation), there are already far more TLAs than there are available spaces -- we've been using CIAR (Classless Inter-Acronym Routing) to separate namespaces based on subject matter and field, but it's only a matter of time before even that fails.

what is the refresh speed? - factor for TVs

[peter303]

People are spoiled by 80Hz+ now. E-paper is one-half Hertz and too slow.

Hey! You know what?

[John Hasler]

I bet you could do that with electron beams too! And with no moving parts! I should patent that...

Laser + Phospher = burn in?

[furby076]

Doesn't PLASMA tv use lasers and phospher and this causes burn-ins? What about this? I don't care how good the image is, if burn-in occurs I don't want it.

Re:Laser + Phospher = burn in?

[kimvette]

Yes, and even burn in "resistant" plasma screens aren't resistant to it at all.

Re:Laser + Phospher = burn in?

[John Hasler]

> Doesn't PLASMA tv use lasers...

No.

So, does it rely on phosphor persistence?

[jcr]

I like the idea of a laser taking the place of the traditional electron beam, and I can see how it would be far more efficient, but I have to wonder if this is going to bring back the flicker problem that we always had with CRTs. One of the things I really like about LCDs and LEDs is the fact that the whole raster is lit all the time.

-jcr

Forget LAPD, I'm waiting for FEDs

[Max(10)]

FEDs (Field emission displays) are superior to CRTs, LCDs and these new LPDs in every way. FEDs have the same thin 2-4 mm profile as LCDs, but unlike LCDs produce very bright and clear images even in direct sunlight (which is why they were used as HUDs in airplanes) while consuming up to 10 times less power. Sony had a 36" FED prototype that consumed only 14 W, which is 1/8 of what a typical LCD and 1/2 of what an LPD of that size would consume.

Re:Forget LAPD, I'm waiting for FEDs

[sexconker]

Insert LAPD joke.

And FEDs are basically many tiny CRTs in one box.
One per pixel, basically.

SEDs are FEDs but one per column/row.

The advantage of these displays comes from removing the need to steer the gun. We can use fancy dancy computer stuff to drive many small ones individually now.

The core reason they make good displays is the same reason a CRT makes a good display. Electrons on phosphors on glass are fucking delicious.

Re:Forget LAPD, I'm waiting for FEDs

[Areyoukiddingme]

And Slashdot editors no longer even post FED-related stories, despite on-going activity in Japan.

Hmm. And things have been going on that I hadn't noticed because of it.

Sony was the last company to attempt production. They seem to have intentionally scuttled the project by spinning it off as Field Emission Technologies and starving it of funds. The subsidiary was trying to put together a factory for production of carbon nanotube-based displays for production in 2009, but failed due to an inability to raise capital. (As a wholly-owned Sony subsidiary. Bullshit meter is ticking up pretty high, here...) Looks to me like the powers that be in southeast Asia are determined to wring every last drop of revenue out of their LCD panel factory investments before they produce a substantially better quality display. Or possibly I'm attributing to malice what can more easily be explained by Sony's raging incompetent management...

SED technology, also substantially superior to LCD for reasons very similar to FED, may finally resurface, more than a decade after the original patent license agreement. In May of 2007, Canon lost the patent lawsuit (in a Texas court, suplies!) brought against them by Applied Nanotech (or Nano-Proprietary; the name seems to have changed). The jury decided that Applied Nano had suffered no damage, however, so Canon was not required to pay any penalty. The judge ruled that Canon had breached the license agreement, thereby allowing Applied Nano to terminate the license agreement while keeping the $5.5 million license fee they got from Canon. Applied Nano had also tried to claim fraud on the part of Canon and assorted other crap. All of that was dismissed.

The lawsuit brought out that number, and here we understand the reason for the lawsuit. Applied Nano got greedy. Very greedy. Somebody showed them the size of the worldwide TV/monitor market and they decided they deserved more than a one-time $5.5 million. They wanted the right to terminate the license and renegotiate it on a per-unit basis, and rake in the dough on every unit sold. They were happy to accept millions for the license, until they got the idea they could rake off hundreds of millions over the lifetime of the patents.

For once, greed lost. Canon appealed and in July of 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that while Canon's establishment of SED, Inc. as a joint venture with Toshiba did not qualify as a subsidiary, Canon's buyout of Toshiba's stake in SED means SED, Inc. does now qualify as a Canon subsidiary, and that termination of Canon's license to use the Applied Nano patents was not an available remedy for Canon's material breach of license. The court reinstated Canon's license, under its original terms. They quoted from the original contract:

Canon paid a onetime lump sum of $5,555,555.55 and received a "fully paid-up, worldwide, royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, nonexclusive license (without the right to sublicense)" that "shall continue in full force and effect until expiration of the last to expire of the LICENSED PATENTS."

And here is where the wheels came off of Applied Nano's ideas of revoking and renegotiating. Canon is incorporated in New York State, in the US, where the law says that the plain language of the contract applies. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that and said that contract terms that specifically say "irrevocable and perpetual" really are irrevocable and perpetual. If one of the parties materially breaches the contract, the aggrieved party has the right to force the perpetrator to mend their ways and move back into compliance with the terms of the contract, but they don't have the right to terminate the contract.

So in theory at least, the way is clear for Canon to start manufacturing SEDs. And has been for a year and a half. There wasn't a single SED to be seen at

Re:Forget LAPD, I'm waiting for FEDs

[EkriirkE]

Sounds an awful lot like Plasma

Phosphors 4tw

[Dr_Barnowl]

I still have a CRT television - backlit displays are rubbish for my preferred viewing habits, which tend to involve lots of darkness viz ; sci-fi, fantasy, etc. Any genre where significant amounts of screen time is spent in the dark just aren't as good on a display which can't achieve 100% blackness (in a darkened viewing room).

The colour response of CRTs is better also.

For picture quality this is on a direct footing with OLED displays, which are going to be using the same optically-excited phosphor compounds (as mentioned in the article). Field-effect displays should be able to use the tried and tested CRT phosphors as they use electron excitation. All of these should be able to display "absolute" black, unlike an LCD.

The downside to OLED and FED is the complexity of manufacturing the screen which requires a tiny individual element for each pixel. LPD sounds like it has a simplicity advantage in manufacturing terms. If the laser works, it works, no dead pixels. It won't need a shadow mask or aperture grill, it won't need a vacuum so a reasonably sized display won't need 10s of kilos of high-lead glass, it'll never need degaussing, it won't need a multi-thousand volt transformer inside it.

It sounds like it should soundly beat out all of the existing displays in terms of manufacturing cost, have a picture quality better than LCDs, a colour response similar to CRT, refresh rates of at least 100Hz for those of us who hate display flicker, maybe higher for those of us who want 3D (or maybe make the resolution higher and put a polarizing filter on it), and consume 25% of the power of LCDs. The only downside is that it might be somewhat deeper than the flatter displays.

Re:Phosphors 4tw

[sznupi]

From your requirements, you should like plasma TVs...better get one while that's still possible (yes, I don't think you should expect any radically new tech really launching anytime soon)

eye damage?

[Dark Fire]

How powerful are the lasers being used? If the phosphor wears thin over time, would you have laser radiation burning out your eyes. Perhaps the technology will bring some truth to that old parental adage about sitting in front of the tv too long.

Re:eye damage?

[omnichad]

A filter that blocks light from getting out of a video screen? genius.

Finally!

[raphael75]

My command center sure could use a display upgrade!

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?

[cmiller173]

It is for this sort of funny that the moderation system should go to 6. Very good sir.

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?

[pjt33]

A gentleman? I think you missed a minor detail there...

DIY LPD using blu-ray lasers

[marciot]

I'm actually in the process of hacking together something similar with a 405nm violet laser pointer, a sheet of glow-in-the-dark material, and a moving mirror. The laser pointer leaves a bright trace on the phosphorescent sheet. My notion was to build a small robot that could write glowing messages as it moved across the glow in the dark sheet.

Anyhow, these guys are apparently working on a full-color version. I think what makes this possible now is the cheap availability of blu-ray laser diodes with sufficiently high wavelength to cause materials to phosphoresce. Red or green lasers do not work (I've tried). These guys were probably waiting for laser technology to catch up to them.

Re:DIY LPD using blu-ray lasers

[rickb928]

Red and green didn't work? Wrong phosphor. I would expect these guys to be using IR, but whatever it is, the right spectrum will excite the right phosphor.

ps- Display thickness (or thinness) is overrated. DLP is a similar concept, so scanning the beam is not so hard. Sony showed some right-angle CRTs a while back that were 3/4" thick, and I expect there is not too much angle needed if you focus the beam carefully, which can be done as we do with various optical players.

This is a clever idea. I wish them luck. Imagine printing the screen about as large as you want.

And refresh rate can be solved with multiple lasers. There, prior art, they can't patent that unless they already did... Maybe....

in other news...

[COMON$]

Wait till they add the feature of an ultra cost efficient mono-color option.

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?

[Mathinker]

Epic funny...

You're up there in the running with http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=981505&cid=25217393 and http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=981353&cid=25214739 (warning: all comments need to be read in the context of the corresponding OP's and their particular threads.)

Of course there's also http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1130061&cid=26877133 but he utilized vulgarity to enhance his humor.

I'm surprised Slashdotters haven't jumped up+down

[SuperBanana]

I believe this particular patent image illustrates what I'm wondering about [google.com] (Roger Hajjar is one of Prysm's founders).

So let me get this straight- they've patented a design that's already used for laser shows, CRTs, and thousands of persistence of vision devices?

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I'm sorry, but CIAR? When trying to parse this, all I got was Central Intelligence Agency and a 1 character buffer overflow.

Clearly I need an upgrade.

Re:Hmm

[sexconker]

On the other hand, I just filed patents for a new method of laser eye surgery.

Simply sit there, watching American Idol unblinkingly like the fat slob you are.

The integrated web cam will composite an image of your retina from millions taken over a period of weeks. Then, the lasers will flash short, invisible, corrective pulses as you stare at Ryan fucking Seacrest.

Eyedol on Idol - the ONLY way to improve your vision as you watch tv. Exclusively on FOX.

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?

[PhilHibbs]

What's the other LPD?

Business Plan is a *Fail*

[mpapet]

which plans to build and sell LPD screens under its own brand,

I'm going to ignore the manufacturing problems they will probably have for now and assume that mass production will happen without an issue.

They are going to enter a pool with *the* biggest sharks in display technology swimming alongside them and expect to come out ahead on this?

The sharks first strike will be offering a vaguely similar product heavily discounted.
The sharks second strike will be a 'generous' offer to license the technology just to have it copied/never reach market. They are still actively discounting something similar, so their competitors have both the carrot and stick working 24/7.
The sharks third strike is to litigate, litigate, litigate.

At one of those strike points, the VC will throw in the towel.

Welcome to American entrepreneurship version 2010.

Oh, I tried to come up with a car analogy, but it just didn't materialize. Go mixed metaphors!

Re:RGS

[sexconker]

Nobody has been able to dethrone the Pioneer Kuros for it's picture quality.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cathode%20ray%20tube

As far as LCD vs plasma, a good LCD is better.

Good luck FINDING a good LCD though - they don't advertise what kind of panel they use, and the tv that got rave reviews from that nerdy videophile site will actually ship to stores with a smattering of different panels and you'll be playing "check the serial number and service code bingo".

Back to flickering again?

[Hurricane78]

Yay, sounds exactly like a CRT, just with a laser instead of an electron beam. But the flickering would obviously still be there. Or if not, the refresh rate would be bad.

I don’t see this becoming a hit with me. I can still use my CRT. That one at least has a flexible resolution... And the colors also still blow any LCD I have seen out of the water. (I have to note, that this is not your average CRT thought. It did cost about $7200 when it was new. I bought it cheap on eBay.)

Re:Back to flickering again?

[robot256]

(I have to note, that this is not your average CRT thought. It did cost about $7200 when it was new. I bought it cheap on eBay.)

Have you tried comparing it with a $7200 LCD? The results might be a little different.

What about Laser Sparkle?

[mykepredko]

These the small dots that appear on a laser image - they are quite noticeable on laser based pico-projectors.

myke

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?

[interkin3tic]

A gentleman? I think you missed a minor detail there...

You think "girlintraining" is a female just because of the name?

Hi, welcome to the internet, you must be new.

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?

[cool_story_bro]

the moderation system should go to 6

why not just make 5 louder?

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?

[Junior J. Junior III]

If it is new, it is unfortunate not only to reuse an acronym, but reusing one in the same domain.

There are only 17,576 three letter acronyms. We've been warning people for years of the need to upgrade to TLAv6, which allows for a wider range of three letter acronyms, including punctuation and numbers as well as unicode support. But many major buzzword providers have refused to upgrade. The last unique TLAs will be depleted within 18 months in our field. Thanks to AAT (Acronym Address Translation), there are already far more TLAs than there are available spaces -- we've been using CIAR (Classless Inter-Acronym Routing) to separate namespaces based on subject matter and field, but it's only a matter of time before even that fails.

lol

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?

[tool462]

Yup, that git didn't notice she's a GiT.

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?

[pjt33]

Gentleman vs female is not a dichotomy.

FLEAs Please!

[camperdave]

I've been trying to get people to switch from Three Letter Acronym to the less popular Four Letter Extended Acronym for years.

I did that last year for Burning Man

[FryingLizard]

for a Burning Man project, using a spherical screen and a 6-channel sound system;

http://frickinlaserbeams.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5muJOcAd7c

Various construction vids at
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=EAEC79EF55D409D2

Works great but green's really where it's at. Blue and Red are much, much dimmer and have shorter persistence.

Alas my shit was not together in time to work properly on the playa... I'll be back this year with the real thing...

Yawn, wake me in 10 years

[scatterbrained]

Yet another display technology being touted. Like FED's, OLEDs, microdisplays, DLP, etc. All are ok technology, but have been massively overhyped and take way longer than their proponents say to reach mass market. Evolution rules the display market, and I don't see LCD being dethroned any time soon.

Acronym nomenclature

[jsiren]

A = Acronym
LA = Long Acronym
TLA = Three Letter Acronym
ETLA = Extended Three Letter Acronym
METLA = More Extended Three Letter Acronym
WMETLA = Way More Extended Three Letter Acronym
SWMETLA = Seriously Way More Extended Three Letter Acronym
TSWMETLA = Totally Seriously Way More Extended Three Letter Acronym
RTSWMETLA = Really Totally Seriously Way More Extended Three Letter Acronym

Re:Acronym nomenclature

[badkarmadayaccount]

You gonna share that weed?

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?

[tempest69]

Thankfully I'm in biology where UDP can't be confused with computer TLA's ;)

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?

[rleibman]

TLAv6 is too difficult, just simply use ETLA (Extended Three Letter Acronym), giving you 456,976 acronyms, that should be enough for a while.

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?

[cmiller173]

For $20,000 I'll build you one that goes to 7.

http://xkcd.com/670/

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?

[gyrogeerloose]

What's the other LPD?

It's that drug we used to take back in the Sixties, man. It was really far out.

Maybe light gun games will return

[IronChef]

Light gun games that relied on a the scan line in a CRT were a lot of fun. The new guns that work with thin panel TVs do not seem to be as accurate.

Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?

[neBelcnU]

There seriously needs to be a special "+{a lot} Funny" for efforts like yours.

I'm going to work this into an email of a semi-officious nature: Stay tuned /.ers for a future story about a financial instutition wanting on the IEEE's TLAv6 board.

3D/Stereoscopic Display

[Samah]

Screw 2D screens, we should be pouring funding into these technologies:

http://www.aist.go.jp/aist_e/latest_research/2006/20060210/20060210.html (TRUE 3D)
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/10/philips-3d-hdtv/ (Stereoscopic w/o glasses)

HZ and LCD

[bussdriver]

Its STILL LCD and blurs. What they do is fake a higher rate by using a strobe to cut down on the blur. Also, I've seen some of the LCDs tear during playback which is not LCD but the electronics causing the problem -- these were cheaper and likely on display to help the sales people fool more customers into how bad 60hz is.

My 30" LCD computer screen is beyond HD at 60hz progressive. It blurs a bit and I got used to it-- its so minor from the 75Hz CRTs I used to have that I only initially noticed. I don't play enough games to notice.