Slashdot Mirror


Creating a "Force Field" Invisible Touch Interface

angry tapir writes "Using infrared sensors like the ones on television remote controls, Texas A&M University students presented an inexpensive multitouch system at the Computer Human Interaction (CHI) conference in Vancouver. 'I like to consider it an optical force field; it's like a picture frame where we shoot thousands of light beams across and we can detect anything that intersects that frame,' said Jonathan Moeller, a research assistant in the Interface Ecology Lab at Texas A&M University. The frame is lined with 256 IR sensors, which are connected to a computer. When ZeroTouch is mounted over a traditional computer screen it turns the display into a multitouch surface. Taken one step further, if the screen is suspended then a user could paint a virtual canvas."

138 comments

  1. Okay... this is cool by mark-t · · Score: 2

    The question is, will it drive down the price of devices with multitouch capability?

    More specifically, could we see this being applied in a competitor to Microsoft Surface anytime soon?

    1. Re:Okay... this is cool by errandum · · Score: 1

      I don't really see this as a competitor for the microsoft surface.

      I'd love for someone to enable the back of my phone for touch, leaving the screen clear of my clumsy heads. Something like this might make it possible

    2. Re:Okay... this is cool by mark-t · · Score: 1

      As I don't recall seeing anything like MS Surface in 1991, I'm unsure why you would make reference to it here.

      Also, name calling is generally the recourse of a person who is unable to construct a reasoned argument.

    3. Re:Okay... this is cool by solidraven · · Score: 1

      The thing is, there were pretty good attempts at similar things in the late 80s, early 90s. In fact there was a digital desktop (as in a real desk) where you could project things like a calculator and it attempted to find where your finger was using a camera. But computer technology wasn't mature enough to provide the processing power required to do it well. Not to mention projector technology wasn't that great either back then. Keep in mind that the current microcontrollers often outperform the best computers of those days in many aspects. Microsoft their solution isn't all that elegant if you take that into consideration as microsoft did what they couldn't back then. Throw a large chunk of processing power at it.

    4. Re:Okay... this is cool by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The question is, will it drive down the price of devices with multitouch capability?

      More specifically, could we see this being applied in a competitor to Microsoft Surface anytime soon?

      Will we see Microsoft Surface in the real world any time soon?

      All I've seen are tech demo's and I haven't even seen one of those in a while.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    5. Re:Okay... this is cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you cower in my shadow? You're pathetic.

    6. Re:Okay... this is cool by Shark · · Score: 1

      I don't care so long as they include a cool theremin sound!

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    7. Re:Okay... this is cool by mark-t · · Score: 0

      The term hypocrisy refers to when a person says something or recommends a practice that is contrary to what they actually do. None of what I've said here qualifies under that term.

      For what its worth, it still seems to me that they are doing something fairly innovative here... even if it is with old tech. From what I understand, the older stuff that utilized this technology used horizontal and vertical beams only, and had an effective resolution that scaled linearly only with the number of sensors used. This uses beams in many more directions coupled with some additional processing power that was not utilized in the older technology to create a reasonably high resolution "image" of what is blocking the beams, while still using a relatively small number of sensors. While the way this works would still have limitations on the types of shapes it can recognize (anything blocking the beams would always be 'seen' by the system as convex, for example), it could still have a lot of applications.

  2. Hasn't this been done already? by honestmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I swear we used to have these at work, 10-15 years ago. They were not multi-touch, but that was likely due to the computer interface (serial) and the perhaps more primitive technology at the time. But I'm pretty sure the sensors were infra-red. As I recall, it wasn't necessarily the most accurate system. So, these guys just improved it a bit, or is this truly "revolutionary"?

    --
    Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
    1. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by guruevi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, the Elo CarrollTouch Touchscreens use this technique.

      Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Elo but we have 2 of these screens for primate research.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by wiredlogic · · Score: 0

      Yes this isn't new technology (other than the multi-touch support). IR touch screens have been around at least since the 80's. You could get add-on bezels for the Apple ][. They are used today for industrial settings where the environment is to harsh or dirty for resistive or capacitive sensors.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    3. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by Cosgrach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes it was done before, but without the multi-touch. We had them as well. A bunch of IR-LEDs and IR receivers along the frame of the CRT. Welcome to the 1990's. I'd vote for simply 'improved', certainly it is not revolutionary.

      --
      Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
    4. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by Hadlock · · Score: 1, Redundant

      These are commercially available for schools already. Whiteboard manufacturers are buying this off the shelf to integrate with their existing whiteboard systems; they use IR emitters/sensors and hooks up via USB as a standard USB HID multitouch device.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    5. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by billcopc · · Score: 0

      Yep, the only thing that's "new" is how cheaply they can be made today. Back in the 90s I worked with a 10ft by 40ft optical sensor array, which drove a synthesizer as a big performance-art techno theremin.

      It had multitouch, though certain combinations would not fire due to line of sight limitations. It was certainly good enough to amaze our druggy audience :)

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    6. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure SmartBoards are the same thing and they've been around forever. On smartboards I only recall seeing the IR diodes in each of the 4 corners though.

    7. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      The latest generation of Sony Readers use infrared touchscreens. This method isn't exactly novel, but here it's applied to a much larger screen and is said to be an add-in component, which is still rather cool. Pick your favorite display and you know you can make it multitouch on top of that.

    8. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Iirc, a Swedish company Made an attempt at selling mobile phones using this as the sensor system for their touch screen phones. Was back around 2000 or so.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    9. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Touchscreens were incorporated into a computer-assisted learning terminal that came out in 1972 as part of the PLATO project.

      The HP-150 from 1983 was probably the world's earliest commercial touchscreen computer. It used a 9" Sony CRT surrounded by infrared transmitters and receivers which detect the position of any non-transparent object on the screen.

      Found this info on Notascoolasitseems.

    10. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by Grizzley9 · · Score: 2

      At least since the 80's. These were used in a local business museum (Enterprise Square USA) game called Venture. This is really old tech, the only thing remotely interesting is it's ability to now do multi-touch. What next, Pong in 3D!!

    11. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by Grizzley9 · · Score: 2

      Or they could just use a Wiimote ala Johnny Lee: http://johnnylee.net/projects/wii/

    12. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      Course there's also the Virtual Laser Keyboard: http://www.virtual-laser-keyboard.com/

    13. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by picoboy · · Score: 1

      Try 39 years ago, at least. University of Illinois PLATO IV terminals connected to a Control Data mainframe. We used to do our physics and chemistry homework on these things, and I can tell you from personal experience that they worked great.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Platovterm1981.jpg

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLATO_(computer_system)

    14. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      The technique debuted commercially in the 80s. From Wikipedia:
      "The HP-150 from 1983 was one of the world's earliest commercial touchscreen computers. Similar to the PLATO IV system, the touch technology used employed infrared transmitters and receivers mounted around the bezel of its 9" Sony Cathode Ray Tube (CRT), which detected the position of any non-transparent object on the screen."

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    15. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Schools usually prefer to buy products with a warranty attached. In many cases, it's required.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    16. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Posted this comment earlier, but it got deleted somehow, not sure why.

      Disclaimer: I'm the guy in the video.

      The biggest difference between our approach and prior infrared touchscreen technologies is the use of one-to-many emitter-sensor pairings. Each infrared emitter is detected by all sensors in view, as opposed to using a single sensor for each emitter. Using a single sensor for each emitter limits the touch detection to two perpendicular grids of parallel light beams. Our approach enables us to reliably distinguish multiple touches, whereas prior infrared touch solutions have ghost touch ambiguities because of the nature of parallel beam sensing.

      You can find more information in the technical papers at our website: ecologylab.net/zerotouch/

      Also, to the guy who thinks he can do this with a handful of infrared sensors and an Arduino, please give it a try and let me know how that works out. There are a lot of very precise timing constraints on a system like this, especially when you are collecting data from 256 sensors, 2400 times a second. Not something you can really do on an Arduino.

    17. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by honestmonkey · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the reply. I had worked on a system in the early to mid 90's where we used an IR touch grid to implement "buttons" that were drawn on the screen. I think we used the CarrollTouch system mentioned above. Guess I should have RTFA. This definitely sounds more interesting than what we did.

      --
      Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
    18. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      > I swear we used to have these at work, 10-15 years ago. They were not multi-touch, but that was likely due to the computer interface (serial) and the perhaps more primitive technology at the time. But I'm pretty sure the sensors were infra-red. As I recall, it wasn't necessarily the most accurate system. So, these guys just improved it a bit, or is this truly "revolutionary"?

      They have advanced significantly since then, including multitouch and even interactive objects (think 3D icon-pucks you can place on the screen, using their position and the shape of their footprint as input). There is a set of Linux packages for sure, and I think other OS's can be used. They have become the subject of quite a bit of hardware hacking. Not hard to do -- could be a weekend project, around $1k including projector, for a skilled tinker. I'll probably be using my old 1280x768 (WXGA) projector to make one in the next few months.

      YouTube Instructional Video:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4lAxBeCMTM

      Lots of links:
      http://www.google.com/search?q=multi-touch+table

    19. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      Err -- my bad, the home-brew ones are not "optical force field" based, as described in the article (similar to original touchscreen technology), they are based on changing with the surface index of refraction when you touch the screen. I suspect the index-of-refraction approach is sensitive to fingerprints, which would be an advantage of capacitive touch or this optical force field.

      The "air-canvas" concept is interesting too, and could not be done with either capacitive touch or index-of-refraction.

    20. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      Have you tried giving the primates an iPad? Just curious?

    21. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike ZeroTouch, SmartBoards do not track 20+ touch points at 85 frames per second.

    22. Re:Hasn't this been done already? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      but we have 2 of these screens for primate research

      So who's the other lucky primate?

      /* me reads disclaimer *homerslap
      D'oh! My bad!

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  3. Re:Not news by mark-t · · Score: 2

    Don't hold back... tell us how you really feel.

    Seriously... what is your problem with this? If you read the article and watched the video, you'd likely see that the applications for this are enormous.

  4. Re:Not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel like this is something people hack up in their back yard... I mean, optical sensors.. come on slashdot.. this isn't news.

  5. Really ? by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 0

    This is news ? I mean, it's a cute college project and all..... but it's sort of a joke compared to the cutting edge. And the cutting edge is what's NEWs.

        This is something i'd expect to see in make mag, or similar.

    1. Re:Really ? by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 1

      Also, FYI.. these guys are re-inventing the wheel... so, sadly, it's not even new: http://www.irtouch.com/

    2. Re:Really ? by Ruke · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that Make comment is about right. I could probably throw one of these together given an arduino, an afternoon, and a handful of IR sensors. Not exactly groundbreaking...

    3. Re:Really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disclaimer: I'm the guy in the video.

      The big difference between our technology and previous IR touch solutions is that previous IR touch screens use a one-to-one relationship between emitters and receivers. That is, there is one emitter for every receiver, and the only beams of light that can be interrupted run straight across the display. This leads to touchpoint ambiguities when multiple fingers are on the screen. Our technology emits light simultaneously to all sensors at the same time, which is what gives it multi-touch capabilities. Check out the technical papers at http://ecologylab.net/zerotouch/ for more details.

      Also, to Ruke, it's not as simple as an Arduino and a handful of IR sensors. There are pretty complex control systems involved in timing the pulsing of LEDs, modulating the duty cycle, reading off sensor data, and repeating the cycle 2500 times every second, for a full-screen refresh rate of 80Hz. I'm sure you could prototype something at 1-2 Hertz with an arudino, but you're right, that wouldn't be very groundbreaking.

    4. Re:Really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah, sprite of spritesmods did it better with a linear sensor from a scanner and a couple LEDs. You probably saw it and ripped him off.

      http://spritesmods.com/?art=lineccdts

    5. Re:Really ? by mevets · · Score: 1

      Don't let them bum you out; the slash in slashdot is more about cutting than sharpness...
      It sounds like you did something pretty decent, and good luck with your studies. Stick to the low level/hardware interfacing side of the industry. Its a rich area with an increasing lack of expertise.

  6. Gig'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gig'em Aggies!!!

  7. ancient tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is 1960s tech. I used a system like this back at my first job. It wasn't multi-touch (not sure the concept of such existed back then), but it worked pretty much the way described in the article. I think the screen I used was installed in front of a plasma display.

  8. I like to consider it a pretty flower. by blair1q · · Score: 1

    No wait -- a roaring lion!

    Better: a subordinated debenture.

    I mean, if we're going to just go making up shit like "force field" when characterizing a simple grid of eye-beam sensors...

    (Hint: where does the "force" come in?)

    And yes, the earliest touch-screen technologies were essentially exactly this sort of light-beam interruptor laid near the surface of a CRT. They were soon replaced by surface-acoustical-wave systems and even capacitive feedback through the cathode beam itself.

    Urg.

    1. Re:I like to consider it a pretty flower. by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 1

      Yea, I was imagining something like force-feedback via the beams.. now THAT would've been cool / slick.

    2. Re:I like to consider it a pretty flower. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wait -- a roaring lion!

      Better: a subordinated debenture.

      I mean, if we're going to just go making up shit like "force field" when characterizing a simple grid of eye-beam sensors...

      (Hint: where does the "force" come in?)

      And yes, the earliest touch-screen technologies were essentially exactly this sort of light-beam interruptor laid near the surface of a CRT. They were soon replaced by surface-acoustical-wave systems and even capacitive feedback through the cathode beam itself.

      Urg.

      u should really do more research before u start criticizing something. u have no idea what u r talking about.

    3. Re:I like to consider it a pretty flower. by blair1q · · Score: 1

      O rly?

      Where does the force come in, Luke?

  9. Re:Not news by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Ad-hominems don't exactly make your own position any stronger.

    Bear in mind that something doesn't have to always utilize cutting edge technology to find a new market.

    Consider also that factors may have been present that caused the technology to not live up to any major expectations in the 80's which may not be applicable today.

  10. Re:Not news by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

    That seems to be the consensus. What are we to do?

    --
    Sig: I stole this sig.
  11. Re:Not news by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 2

    I'm not a huge fan of personal attacks, but you've got to admit, the guy's right.. this stuff is really very old stuff... it's not even marginally innovative.

  12. Re:Not news by Ruke · · Score: 1

    Doesn't work in the sun, for one thing. For another, it's necessarily going to be pretty bulky; it's not suitable for mobile applications. Since your finger has to interrupt the beam, there will necessarily be a ridge around the outside of your viewing area, which will attract dirt and grime, which will interrupt the IR beams. The resolution is exactly equal to the number of IR senors that you stack around the outside of the thing; it doesn't exactly scale well.

    It's not exactly ground-breaking tech. It's simple enough to be suitable for an undergraduate project, but the applications in industry are extremely limited.

  13. Don't talk put your hand on my sensor ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can't resist the Pet Sounds reference. Go ahead: Off Topic

  14. Re:Not news by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Old stuff is not necessarily bad stuff... I'm at a complete loss as to how this technology could not be viably used to make large multitouch displays more economically viable than the outrageously priced Microsoft Surface.

  15. Re:Not news by mark-t · · Score: 1

    I was thinking of it more for applications that weren't mobile... like a touch-screen desk surface.

    Resolution was initially a concern of mine as well when I saw the article, until I saw the video and with only 256 beams around the entire frame it appeared to have quite respectable resolution.

  16. Re:Not news by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 2

    It's not that it's old... it's that its' NOT new in any tangible way... no new tech , no new application, no real invention here.. which makes it pretty "meh" in perspective.

    That this stuff has been sold commercially for decades is pretty damning in terms of this being a "So what? " news item.

  17. Re:Not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a pulsed beam it will work in the sun, or any incredibly bright IR source. That's how TV remotes work, using modulated 40kHz transmission of an IR beam. Works in any light at huge range, cheap too.

  18. Old Technology by hawguy · · Score: 1

    1981 called... They want their technology back.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchscreen#Infrared

    (and yes, for you xkcd fans, I did warn them about Haiti and Japan)

    1. Re:Old Technology by ScottBob · · Score: 1

      Actually, older than that... The Plato IV terminal had a touch screen in 1964... https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Plato_computer#Innovation

    2. Re:Old Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the HP 150 was a much more elegant use...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_150

      Congratulations on reinventing the past, and demonstrating a a through lack of understanding of the history of technology.

  19. This has been around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mettler Toledo has been using this exact technology for a long time in touch screen grocery store scales. It is much more robust than the typical touchscreen and is easily and cheaply repaired when is does break. This has been around much longer than today's glass touchscreens. What's the news here again?

  20. Slashot .... by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    .. demolishing your self-worth and your senior research project in front of all of Nerddom.

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

      actually, its your reputation here that's been demolished, cyberfunk2. pay more attention to the details, next time.

    2. Re:Slashot .... by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Well he does have a fair point. This is one of the basic things most electronics students will eventually build in college as a simple exercise and they then drop it due to the lack of real world applications. I've seen people who haven't studied any electronics build similar things and make 3D scanners out of them. It's not like it's particularly hard either. It's harder to drive a small LCD display than to build one of these...

    3. Re:Slashot .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Utter fail!

  21. BUT.... by uncanny · · Score: 3, Informative

    how is this a FORCE field?

    1. Re:BUT.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd call it a 'field disruption' interface rather than a 'force field' interface.

      They're introducing disruptions in a saturated 2D IR field, which allows for multi-touch as well as point density identification. 'Force field'? Not seeing where the standard 'F' (force) we all know from physics, intersects here unless you define the density of disruption as 'force' (F).

      /my take.. work at A&M, but in a separate College

    2. Re:BUT.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's easier to talk crap than to actually do some research.

      Slashdot... not what used to be.

    3. Re:BUT.... by ebuck · · Score: 1

      After a few minutes of using it, you're applying a lot of force against your monitor.

  22. U-Force! by BlindSpot · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the U-Force I got for the original NES - that was over 20 years ago! Still have it in its original box, actually. Maybe in another 25 years it'll be worth something... it certainly wasn't when it came out! It sorta worked for Punch-Out, and not at all for anything else.

    I can't remember if the U-Force was what would now be called "multi-touch"... probably not. Didn't RTFA, but at any rate I assume (and would hope) the one in the article works a lot better!

  23. Since when is Texas part of Canada? by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 0

    Texas A&M University

    http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=canada

    What the heck, now we can blame Canada for stupid stories about 1970s tech making the front page.

    --
    Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
  24. sorry, Disney did it first. by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    In my local mall, during last christmas holiday, Disney set up an interactive display game to promote their wild-4-disney passes.
    It consisted of multiple flat-screen tvs setup in a wall with an IR sensor setup in a field-sweep above the whole display. The point was to "drag" christmas ornaments to decorate the tree.

    This is a similar tech with multi-touch.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  25. or by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    you can use a webcam for free out of a dumpster and stick it in a light box like everyone else has been doing

  26. Are we really bragging about using a "magic eye" by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    cause those have been out for like what 60+ years

    you have light on one end, photodetector on the other, there you made a force field here is some juice and a cookie, go play now

  27. Re:Not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree but the amount of slashvertisement and crappy articles that have been added in the past few months have degraded the quality of this site tremendously, not to mention that /. is always behind by a minimum of a few days. I don't really care for the latter because it's always been that way but quality has been steadily declining and then poof, past few months it was as if the site was under new control and everything turned to shit. Gawker is terrible, engadget isn't worth a crap with their bias apple appeal, IGN is perversion, and ars is the most decent of them all but news on there is added very slowly.

  28. HP 150 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty sure that HP had this same technology on the HP 150 I had back in '84-'85... Somehow it's re-invented 25 years later?

    1. Re:HP 150 by Cosgrach · · Score: 1

      Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

      --
      Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
  29. Re:Not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Projects that people hack up in their backyard are what slashdot needs MORE of, not less. More stuff like this and less stories about smartphones, please.

  30. Re:Not news by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Ad-hominems don't exactly make your own position any stronger.

    Technically, it's not an ad-hominem if you list the reason for the name-calling (which he did, beforehand). That said, Michael Kristopeit### is a known troll.

  31. Plato System? by Hartree · · Score: 1

    That sounds like a Plato IV terminal. They had that system in front of an orange plasma panel display. It wasn't as high a resolution as this, but the idea was the same. Worked fairly well, too.

      Here's a picture of one.

  32. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The military used similar devices back in the 70's.

  33. Re:Air Jordan Shoes by hawguy · · Score: 0

    Air Jordan is a brand enjoy h...

    Why is there so much of this spam popping up on Slashdot lately? Slashdot has historically done well at avoiding comment spam, but it seems that in the past few weeks, I've seen a number of these types of spam.

  34. RDF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe Apple can re-tune the Reality Distortion Field to act as a force field interface. That would improve battery life, since it could run on the user's smugness.

  35. Welcome to 1983 by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 2

    Main feature of the HP-150.

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
  36. 1972 - PLATO IV (similar, but no multi-touch) by theodp · · Score: 1

    A Brief History of Pads, Part 2: Touch me!: "PLATO was a series of educational computer terminals that originated from the University of Illinois. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, PLATO contained many features that we take for granted today like e-mail, message boards and online tests. The fourth generation PLATO IV terminal featured a flat (and bright orange) plasma screen that students could touch to answer questions. The touch function was achieved by a series of infrared lights and receptors around the rim of the display. A finger would break a beam of light and trigger a touch."

  37. Canada? by simonbp · · Score: 1

    Is Texas in Canada now?

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

      Indeed; why are so many non-Canada related (or very vaguely related) articles popping up with the Canada tag? 'Sup slashdot?

    2. Re:Canada? by mini+me · · Score: 1

      I agree it is a strange choice, but the event took place in Canada, so there is at least some Canadian connection.

  38. Old hat tech by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

    Seen this a long time ago, at least 10 years ago. It was essentially a frame lined with IR sensors facing each other and tracking your hand movements and turned any flat panel display (such as a plasma TV) into a touchscreen surface. While it didn't do multi-touch, it was essentially the exact same concept

  39. Re:Not news by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Doesn't work in the sun, for one thing.

    It might not work on the ocean floor either, but so what?

    Fer chrissake, what did you invent today?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  40. You mean like how all touchscreens USED to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    meh x 1000

  41. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trident submarines used this technology on an old piece of equipment called DRS. And it sucked. I have no idea why this is news.

  42. Recent election... by mevets · · Score: 1

    The Canadian government is owned by Texans; so no, Canada is in Texas now. We have our own mini GB, just lacking his likability and intelligence.

    1. Re:Recent election... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plagiarizing Heather Mallick's description of PM Stephen Harper is what lacks intelligence.

  43. What's new about this? by jm0le · · Score: 5, Informative

    Disclaimer: I'm the guy in the video.

    The big difference between what we're doing, and what's been done before, is that we are using one-to-many communication between emitters and sensors, as opposed to earlier systems, which use matched emitter/sensor pairs on opposite sides of the display to generate a series of parallel lines in both the x and y directions that can be interrupted.

    By reading from a large number of sensors for each infrared emitter, we generate a dense mesh of infrared light beams, which is what enables the sensor to detect multiple touches. Prior infrared systems using parallel beams suffer from ghost touch ambiguities when multiple fingers are on the display. Ours does not. This is the big differentiator between what's been done before and what we've done.

    Most SMART boards and other commercial multi-touch sensors, use two cameras in the corners of a screen (some use four), and computer vision algorithms to identify and track touches on the display. Our approach is different in that it generates a more complete visual hull of the interactive area than with these types of systems. Using two cameras means you can only reliably track two touches due to occlusion issues, whereas we can detect 20+ touchpoints with high reliability.

    More info can be found on our website: http://ecologylab.net/zerotouch/

    The publications at the bottom of the page should help slashdot readers understand the technical innovations a little bit better.

    1. Re:What's new about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disclaimer: I'm a veteran of the touch industry

      The authors and readers should understand that use of multiple beams with emitter/detectors distributed around the perimeter to address (but not solve) the occlusion problem (and to attempt to discriminate more than one "touch") is extremely old.

      Method and apparatus for detecting the location of an object on a surface
      Apparatus and method to improve resolution of infrared touch systems
      Philips Entertaible
      there's more, etc....

      The apparatus has actually been revived in several products that have been shipping for quite some time already.

      Common problem in academia... to mis-appropriately claim and celebrate each other's non-novelty.

      I'll also add that discrete emitter/detectors are orders of magnitude more expensive than cmos cameras and asics, which is why the industry is trying (though I'm not saying successfully) to figure it with the latter way.

    2. Re:What's new about this? by Guidii · · Score: 1

      Quick links: There's a good paper describing the process, and a discussion of the electronics on Jonathan's blog.

      One question.... what are the production costs of the electronics if I wanted to build one of these? (I never quite know what people mean when they say "low cost";) Also, are you planning to publish the schematics?

      (Ooops. I guess that's two questions....)

    3. Re:What's new about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly you are new to this site.
      It goes against the cultural norm to provide useful, clear specific information that clarifies an issue.
      Please re-phrase. Some of the more popular options include to obfuscation, veer totally off topic or flame Microsoft.

    4. Re:What's new about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any way of making a DIY kit rough draft?
      Is your driver software OS, is it aviable somewhere?

      I "looks" like a cheap systems to mount.

      Looks amazing.

      PD: I can beat you any time in tropical, but not in CA, as it sucks
      xta for the pro TA player!!

    5. Re:What's new about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work in the meat dept in Publix supermarkets.
      our wrapping machine uses this, and ya I can multitouch the screen. its how i print some of the special sales labels on the wrapped meat packs before putting them on display in the fridge case. this aint new. you just have more sensors and faster processors than my store's Instawrap machine.

  44. not tracking well by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    A lot of people seem to have missed the point here. Either that or the old sensors were cleverer than I thought. Anyhow, I like this approach, I wonder how well it copes with fingers bunched together looking like a single fat finger or whether it can still be confident that the finger it tracks out of a bunch is the same one it tracked going in without getting confused.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  45. Next Window by ovoskeuiks · · Score: 1

    Plenty of touch overlays for larger screens used this technology, I have a stack of overlays for 32" panels that use IR like this. A much better options would be something like Next Window Overlays http://www.nextwindow.com/ They use a pair of 1 dimesional ir cameras and a bar of ir lights to triangulate objects in their field of view so by placing the cameras in the top two corners of the screen and the ir leds between them you can have a simple bar rather than a square frame like this thing. Mount a bunch of them on the ceiling next to each other and you'd have instant 3D multitouch

  46. Re:Not news by xTantrum · · Score: 1

    yeah this doesn't mean shit till apple creates it. Then everyone will jump on the bandwagon. Oh wait...

    --
    $action = empty(PHP) ? backToC() : unset(PHP) ; "when the concrete cases are understood, the abstractions are readily
  47. Re:Not news by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    hogwash in computer years its a billion, its like the Greeks fighting with static electricity on their amber everything, then in 2011 some kids think "well duh we must have been so stupid to not think of a generator based on this concept of statk electricity!"

    sounds like a high school 4 person group project in electronics class, oh wait we did a lower resolution version of this back in 1994 as a time killer semester, what "innovations" do we do now?

    nasa plant seedlings and cockroach fucking in space? oh some dipshit found a use for a IR photo-transistor from radio shack? what's next? canned food? bandages?

    for fucks sake America this is the best we have?

  48. Will keyboards and mice become obsolete one day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It won't be long before the keyboard and mouse become about as scarce as the modern day typewriter.

    I wonder if anyone is going to claim a (twenty year) patent on this (likely) publicly funded product?

  49. This actually seems to be really new! by GrantRobertson · · Score: 1

    As a semi-professional cynic and the guy who tore into the Rice University students who's PR dept. claimed they had invented a revolutionary solution to a huge health problem, I had initially thought, as many here have claimed, that this IR-beam touch-screen frame was nothing new. However, I was also trained at one of the the EloGraphics plants (I can't remember where the heck it was now) on how to install and repair those old IR-beam touch screens. I also serviced several other makes of IR-beam touch screens when I was a technician at the California Museum of Science and Industry in Los Angeles back in the late 1980s.

    Those old IR-beam touch screens worked on a very basic principle. The beams went across the screen in a strict grid pattern of horizontal and vertical lines. Very simple hardware detected which horizontal beam and which vertical beam had been blocked and then reported a basic X-Y coordinate. This is why, as one commenter has mentioned, the data could be transmitted via serial connection. The data consisted of nothing but a series of coordinates.

    The main thing that people complained about with this design was: If a user placed two fingers on the screen or laid their finger against the screen such that it blocked more than one horizontal and/or vertical beam, then the coordinate reported always indicated the top-most and left-most interrupted beams. There simply was no way to detect the correct position of more than one finger. This was because of the way the electronics were designed. The circuit simply polled each sensor in turn till it found the first blocked beam in each of the horizontal and vertical directions. Those sensor numbers were reported as the coordinates and the electronics reset and started polling from the top-left again. It seemed an intractable problem - at the time - to detect when fingers were blocking one horizontal beam but two vertical beams or any other combination other than just one of each.

    Now, neither the article nor the video mentions it, but by looking carefully at the first few seconds of the video, one can see that this sensor array works in an entirely different way. It appears that they use - as they said - "thousands of beams" but not in a simple horizontal-vertical grid. Instead, they send them out at dozens of different angles from each of hundreds of points along the edge of the frame. Then by compiling the list of all the different beams that are blocked at any given time they can build up a picture of exactly where something is blocking all of those beams, no matter how big it is or how many there are. Again, take a close look at the video from seconds 3 - 6 and seconds 42 - 45. You will see them display "what the computer sees" represented by lines for each beam that isn't blocked and the blank space where no beams cross from any direction. It is almost like one of those lame string-art things we used to make in the 1970s, except you just put a string from every point to every point on the frame, then remove just enough to make some holes in the webbing.

    I have to say, this is definitely a significant advance on what I know of the current technology. Now, it is possible - in the intervening 30 years - that other technologies have come up which used this multi-angle beam system. But I haven't seen any. And certainly none with the software behind it to sus out the full size and shape of each object blocking the beams.

  50. number of touch points transforms the experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    irtouch.com handles 2 touch points. ZeroTouch does 20+. you do the math.

  51. Old Tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a very old touch screen system. I recall seeing one well over 10 years ago and AFAIR there should even be a patent out there on it.

  52. Captain, They are using a force field!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG!!, Close the Deflector Shields, Hurry up!

    I'm feeling the disturbance in the force in my fingers.

  53. Bad headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While a product like this would be nice to turn something like a regular 19 inch LCD into a touch panel, it is not anything revolutionary... The thing that touch interfaces need is tactile feedback. (Maybe through an array of panels on the surface that can create different textures depending on the current. I'm sure someone will get on that eventually. I imagine the panels would be really fragile though and scratching would be an issue.)

    Also, more important than touch would be a gesture-based interface, one that could take sign language and recognize precise movements as input in the place of a keyboard. Current gesture interfaces require too much flailing to be much use if the goal is to be as efficient as a keyboard and mouse. Though, maybe I'm biased because flailing about looks unimpressive.

    1. Re:Bad headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its of use for artistic producing purposes.

      Designers, illustrators, art students could use this interface to create more easily.

      Not to mention Animators.

      Even 3d modeling, using software like blender and those "clay" like modifiers, would couple well with this technology.
      just one example.

  54. 'I like to consider it an optical force field..." by biglig2 · · Score: 1

    "... because I don't know what a force field is. That's because I have never watched Star Trek. That's because I am not a geek. Please sleep with me."

    --
    ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
  55. Old Technology, is new again by ebuck · · Score: 1

    I'm just waiting for them to re-release paper tape, the light pen, drum memory, and the toggle switch programming interface. We could call them cellulose ray, light sabre, wisdom vortex, and direct binary injection respectively.

  56. Theremin? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 2

    You mean they've re-invented the Theremin?

    1. Re:Theremin? by Whoop365 · · Score: 1

      hey, i was just wondering if this is the same Sirholo i played Zatikon with. This is Joseph Mullen by the way.

  57. HP already sells this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I bought a HP monitor about 3 months ago that does this. It's got two IR light plane generators in the top corners, and an IR detector array around the bottom and sides. It's multitouch and works great. And this technology DOES make multitouch cheaper. It was $100 less than the other capacitive multitouch displays in the same size.

  58. Force field? by funky_vibes · · Score: 2

    I thought shields had to be dropped for phasers?

  59. Occluded Fingertips? by Vastad · · Score: 1

    Hmmm...I don't see how this tech deals with occluded fingertips...

  60. was standard on Plato terminals in the 60s-80s by lpq · · Score: 1

    It only had about a 256 touch-point resolution (16x16), but IR sensors were
    standard on most Plato terminals back at the U. of Ill. It had a few terminals scattered off campus, as far away as Hawaii, so would have qualified as one of the first nationwide 'network' systems.

    Behind the touch grid was a 512x512 plasma display (monochrome) (didn't require refresh!).

    The base system supported interactive chat (multi-person as well as two people), email, multi-user forums, per-user 'cookies', program-loadable fonts (designable by users or 'authors'.

    All software was in 'Tutor', an English oriented language with power to do complex math as well as 2-D graphics. The terminals generally ran at serial-line speeds with most running in the 1200-2400 baud range. The CPU (most were CDC (Control Data) based mainframes that used a 60-bit word size.

    They used them for instruction on the campus in CAI courses that taught everything from physics, to language, math, chemistry, and computer languages as well as some ultra cool cross-continent chat, forums, and 100+user games. A space-battle game (Empire) was probably the most popular with some DND type games following it. Had 3-D line-drawn mazes, multi-user parties....all running on a main frame! Would timeshare maybe 200-400 users depending on the mainframe (most running low-cpu interactive learning progs, which, of course, got highest priority over the games which ran in background.

    They measured cpu time in "TIPS" Thousands of instructions/Second!

    Nice that they've finally reinvented a 40 yr/old touch system! Hope they don't try for a patent! ;-)

    At least they upped the resolution...

    Eventually microcomputer based computers replaced the orange plasma displays, having the advantage of being able to run locally loaded 'script' ('u'Tutor) programs downloaded from the main 'web', er, mainframe which allowed fancier animation, among other things...(as well as the ability to write aids for some of the star-battle games).

    Unlike slashdot, it could actually display a micro (u) sign without difficulty.

    Why is slashdot so backward in not supporting UTF-8 or even archaic HTML entities? 40 year old plasma diplays could display the entire Greek alphabet, but slashdot? Bear skins and stone knives!

  61. Re:Not news by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Point being that this exact tech *hasn't* been done before... it's based around an old technology, but throwing more processing power at it to achieve things that were not possible two decades ago.

  62. Doesn't seem like that much of a breakthrough.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The basic technology to do this has been around for ages. Maybe not the computational power to drive it, but definitely the underlying technology.

  63. Re:Not news by bipedalhominid · · Score: 1

    Yeah but since you call people idiots all the time I will boycott those sites.

    --
    This aint Daytona and you aint Dale Earnhardt. So stop trying to draft on Interstate 40.
  64. Re:Not news by bipedalhominid · · Score: 1

    I agree. Maybe we should post a new article on /. Call it, oooh I dont know maybe something like, Are there any good discussion sites out there? Post them here and let's discuss their pros and cons.

    --
    This aint Daytona and you aint Dale Earnhardt. So stop trying to draft on Interstate 40.