Nanoresonators Create Ultra-High-Res Displays

TuurlijkNiet writes with this excerpt from Linux for Devices: "Eat your heart out, 'Retina display.' A new technology unveiled yesterday will allow creating pixels eight times smaller than the ones on Apple's iPhone 4, eliminate the need for polarizer layers, and allow screens to make much more efficient use of available light, say University of Michigan researchers. ... The pixels in the nanoresonator displays are about ten times smaller than those on a typical computer screen, and about eight times smaller than the pixels on the iPhone 4, which are about 78 microns, according to Guo. Such pixel densities could make the technology useful in projection displays, as well as wearable, bendable or extremely compact displays, according to the researchers."

Comments

cool

[Jarik C-Bol]

Now that they can make pixels so small that they can only be singled out from distances closer than my eyes can focus, they can finally put some effort into making.. i got nothing, i don't see the point of this.

Re:cool

[Pojut]

Now that they can make pixels so small that they can only be singled out from distances closer than my eyes can focus

You answered your own question. Lay them down on transparent material, put that on a pair of glasses, and Bob's your uncle.

Re:cool

[leromarinvit]

Now that they can make pixels so small that they can only be singled out from distances closer than my eyes can focus, they can finally put some effort into making.. i got nothing, i don't see the point of this.

How about sharp and non-jagged fonts? It removes the need for anti-aliasing, since your vision acts as the low-pass filter now.

Re:cool

[tlhIngan]

Now that they can make pixels so small that they can only be singled out from distances closer than my eyes can focus, they can finally put some effort into making.. i got nothing, i don't see the point of this.

Well, for a display on its own, it's not terribly useful. After all, increase the pixel density beyond the iPhone 4 and you'll be adding useless pixels that take memory (framebuffer), power (all those pixels require controllers behind them, plus your 2D and 3D accellerators have to push that many more pixels) and size (enlarged bitmaps and the like take more space). They say an iPad with the PPI of the iPhone 4 would become something like 3000x5000 pixels-ish, which we're talking is latest graphics card style power to render all those pixels.

HOwever, the use is mentioned in the summary - those pico projectors. A small, light, bright, 1080p+ capable projector is probably doable, rather than the WVGA or less resolutions you get now typically.

Re:cool

[sznupi]

Contact lenses with integrated display. I'm overdue with augmenting myself already...

Re:cool

[Defenestrar]

Every layer of polarization cuts the available light in half. Creating a display with pixels smaller than the unaided eye can view without these is actually huge because the current limit in preventing a "realistic" display (i.e. you can't tell the difference between the display and looking out a window) is actually in the contrast resolution (difference between light and dark) which still has a very long way to go before it hits human eye capacity. Freeing up more light allows for brighter whites and perhaps even the possibility of layering displays to get darker blacks (depending on the transparency of "black.")

Re:cool

[Monkeedude1212]

It'd need some way to determine how your eyes are focused though - whether you are intending to look at your hud or something distant. Hold up an object up to your eye about where your glasses would rest. Close the other eye that won't see the object. Look at the object, then look at the wall behind it. Edges should get fuzzy and details will get blurred. When you get into thin lines like a GUI Frame or Text Font, this kind of focus is crucial.

The annoying thing is, once you've been taught to read, any time the center of your gaze lands on upon letters your muscle memory forces you to read it, ultimately taking focus off of what you might have actually been looking at. Its possible to force yourself to ignore it, but you have to generally be trying not to read in order to not to read, which seems weird, because it should be easier to NOT do something than do something, right? Imagine words being printed on your glasses, and how quickly you'll be shifting back and forth between 1 inch from your eye and that person 5 feet away, how much eye strain that will cause and how this system will have to either adjust to be readable at both focal points, or at a very minimum NOT get in your way when you are looking at something else.

This fantasy of an good GUI overlay right over the eyes is really a difficult one to tackle. I'm not saying it can't be done, but even once we get the display down, there are still hurdles.

Re:cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that they can make pixels so small that they can only be singled out from distances closer than my eyes can focus

You answered your own question. Lay them down on transparent material, put that on a pair of glasses, and Bob's your uncle.

Ah, brilliant! Because when you wear the glasses, it'll project an image of your uncle over your friend Bob any time you're looking at him, AND it'll be at a high enough resolution that you can look really close at him and still not make out the pixels?

Man, this is going to be GREAT for people who can't stand their friend Bob but who have really cool uncles!

Re:cool

[nacturation]

It'd need some way to determine how your eyes are focused though - whether you are intending to look at your hud or something distant. Hold up an object up to your eye about where your glasses would rest. Close the other eye that won't see the object. Look at the object, then look at the wall behind it.

Now look back at the object. Sadly, it isn't your eye. But if it had a fine enough resolution it could be compatible with your eye. Look down, back up. Where are you? You're on Slashdot looking for the display your display could look like. What's in your hand? Back at me. I have it, it's the iPhone 5 with a display so fine you can't tell the difference. Look again. The iPhone display is now a projector. Anything is possible when your device is made from nanoresonators and not a retina display. I'm modded up.

Re:cool

[DurendalMac]

I'm no expert on this, but what if they could be used to make LCDs that don't look like ass at non-native resolutions? If one pixel at 1920x1080 is actually a bunch of these tiny pixels acting as one (at least as far as the OS is concerned), then it would be far easier to "enlarge" that collection of pixels to act as a single pixel at 1280x720 by simply enlarging it by the proper number of subpixels. Seems feasible to me, but maybe someone with more experience in that area can chime in.

Re:cool

[azmodean 1]

Well, for a display on its own, it's not terribly useful. After all, increase the pixel density beyond the iPhone 4 and you'll be adding useless pixels that take memory (framebuffer), power (all those pixels require controllers behind them, plus your 2D and 3D accellerators have to push that many more pixels) and size (enlarged bitmaps and the like take more space).

What part of "iPhone 4 has resolution that matches the resolution of the human eye when held at arm's length" did you miss? I'm guessing the part in bold. I for one would absolutely love to have a pair of glasses that met or exceeded the resolution my eyes could perceive. And frankly, even if the display is "wasting pixels" in a given scenario, the obvious solution is to cut back on processing somehow, perhaps by lowering the resolution of image rendering to what is needed instead of the native resolution of the display. Sure the device will need beefier hardware for the situations where it actually needs to render at native resolution, but nothing is forcing the system to actually use all of those resources at all times.

Re:cool

[Yvan256]

I now feel like diamonds on a horse.

Wait, why did I say that?!

Re:cool

[Dashiva Dan]

I'm against getting sucked into commercial advertising, but after the old spice phenomenom, I've given it some serious thought and decided that I don't mind being sucked in when the advertising has that ... Je ne sais quoi... It's not going to happen often by it's own virtue, and that company that can come up with it can have my business, or at least "have me as a tool" to forward their advertising (still never bought any old spice products, and don't plan to)
I wish every advertiserment I happened accross had the same 'Je ne sais quoi' of awesomness.

Re:cool

[Dashiva Dan]

And aside for the obvious HUD-like qualities, remember you could have an external display on contact lenses. Programmable eye colour, animated eye colour. before long we'll have contacts that make a person's eyes look like marbles of doom, or something even more imaginative. That'd probably work better with e-ink unless you wanted your eyes to also glow in the dark.

Bendable displays

[Pojut]

The implications of a bendable display are huge, but I think something people don't address enough is durability. I don't mean "this display can be rolled up in a pringles can and still function!", I mean from a puncture and general jostling around perspective. People expect these displays to be paper thin...but what kind of material are these displays being sandwiched in between to ensure that they stay safe?

IPhone Nano ...

[Zorlon]

Looking forward to teeny tiny iPhones

Can I get my watch in 1080p now?

[erroneus]

I am guessing this is "small enough" yes? Also, I want a netbook with a resolution higher than 1366x768 as well.

Manufacturability? Cost?

[CityZen]

I have a feeling we won't be seeing this in consumer products any time soon.

Could be good...

[Angst Badger]

...if it means that we'll start getting computer monitors with higher resolutions again instead of repurposed HDTV screens.

Re:Could be good...

[cynyr]

how about just 17" 4k2k monitors... or even a 17" 1080p...

Wearable displays?

[Guppy]

Such pixel densities could make the technology useful in projection displays, as well as wearable, bendable or extremely compact displays, according to the researchers.

I'd be interested in seeing this technology in head-mounted wearable displays, and would like to propose that we term such devices "scouters". I believe they'll become practical once the achievable dpi is over nine-thousand.

Magnify where?

[fyngyrz]

Might be interesting in combination with other technology, though... your idea of a projector incorporates magnification. What if the magnification was in your eye? Imagine a biomod that gives you up to 8x optical magnification; switch it in, and you'd be looking at the details on the display, if you wanted to -- they'd be there all the time.

Another thing is stereo output (mistakenly characterized as "3d" by today's marketing droids.) With pixels this tiny, it might be a lot easier to have a set for each eye that are set into what amounts to a wrinkled substrate; one set would direct light at the left eye, while the other did so at the right. Resolution wouldn't suffer because it's still below your ability to resolve the pixels.

You could put a full-HD display in just a corner of your sunglasses, and drop an optical layer over it so that when you were looking into it, you could see detail, depending on the angle your eye created against the optical layer; that would also help manage focus distance issues.

HUDs might be implemented better because the pixels are so small that they just wouldn't be visible when off; a (very) thin line of this material would be like an ultra-thin wire in the glass... but when emitting light at night, would become strikingly visible... depending on the light output, that might even work in the day. Depends on where they're getting the light from, I would think

Instruments like microscopes, telescopes, binoculars, cameras... anything you put your eye to, really... the could benefit from a very tiny display and some small optics to give you status / info on what you were observing.

And hey, how fun would it be for an electronics tech to have an oscilloscope display built into his safety goggles?

I could see a day when the entire multicore computer is in your glasses. You talk to it; it talks to you through the earpiece; display is both full-screen in one corner, and HUD all over the glass; antennae are in the arms of the glasses.

Anyway, just some ideas. There must be tons of applications for really tiny displays, as opposed to big displays with pixels you can't resolve.

8x smaller then what we can perceive???

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing to see here, move along!

Re:come on, nerds

[clone53421]

A LCD uses two polarizing filters. One of them “flips” its polarization 90 degrees when you apply a current.

Depending on the current, the polarizing filters can either be lined up (0 degrees) or perpendicularly aligned (90 degrees), or anywhere in-between.

When the polarizing filters are lined up, the backlight shines through (or the ambient light from the room is reflected off of the back of the display. When the polarizing filters are perpendicular, the pixel is black.

The color itself is created by a normal filter; individual red, green, and blue sub-pixels are used to create any RGB value.

Autostereoscopic Displays

[cowtamer]

Where the resolution gets divided by the number of views displayed simultaneously. If you could make display with 1000 dpi resolution, you could turn it into an autostereoscopic display with horizontal parallax displaying 10 images at 100 dpi. I imagine a 10000 dpi screen would let you create something indistinguishable from a hologram with no glasses required to view it...

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

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1320857

So would a high res display be good for

[NotSoHeavyD3]

multiple resolutions? I mean Suppose you had a screen that had a huge resolution. (IE in the millions.) Then if you wanted to do say some standard resolutions like 1280X1024 or 800X600 you could just pick some nice multiple of either of those figures and used most of the screen. (You might have to leave a few lines of pixels off the bottom and right if the screen wasn't an even multiple but if the pixels where extremely small this wouldn't be a problem.) Wouldn't that make the math very quick and easy? (IE if all you had to do is convert your square pixel an resolution X to say a 5X5 square made out of smaller pixels.)

300 DPI Displays

[Lawrence_Bird]

How about we get some freakin affordable high DPI 20+ inch displays to work on? Display dpi has been stuck at 100 or less for...decades? And now that the IT industry things that pc users really just want 1080p for video we go backwards.