Multi-layer LCD Displays

Jmo writes "Puredepth has started to produce multi-layer LCD displays. They manipulate LCD technology so that one screen can be placed behind another for actual depth. This technology has not even come close to being fully taken advantage of but it is still very interesting and has many implications for the future. Their main product right now is a seventeen inch monitor, the MLD-3000. It is mainly targeted at medical and business fields but it could be used all over."

The price

[puiahappy]

I think is a very god piece of hardware but at that price ($1,799.00), i think that a few years will have to pass until we`ll start using it at home.

3D

[obender]

Two layers is not deep enough for 3D, you would need hundres of layers. But I doubt the technology described in TFA even attempts this.

Well, I'm sure this will be discussed in much more detail on Monday when the dupe will be posted.

Not for ord. users but GIS guys maybe

[Flywheels of Fire]

It's not really good for 3D stuff. So that only means you can use it for stacked virtual desktops. But as TFA says, stacking transparent desktops on each other is quite annoying. Let virtual desktops be virtual.

However, I do see a use in this for GIS [mithuro.com] applications. You can redefine the term overlay with this.

I'm a bit curious

[Timesprout]

as too all this research and product development into 3D displays. It didnt work in the cinema and personally I cant think of a compelling mainstream requirement for 3D on the desktop.

pointless

[cahiha]

Wasting two full LCD displays on getting two blurry discrete depths is not a good use of hardware. If you expend the same amount of effort on a true 3D display, you can do the same thing, and you can actually look at arbitrary 3D objects/scenes.

Zounds!

[back_pages]

From TFA

The practical applications that Puredepth advertises for its MLD displays are vast and far-reaching. In any application that would benefit from greater information density (such as backgrounds with changing overlays, work areas with tool palettes, etc.), the MLD adds true depth to what would usually be a simulated effect. The effect is truly amazing, especially when compared with a standard 2D display.

As you can see, this device is a GREAT benefit to the vast and far-reaching applications that would benefit from it. We could name them, but we'll settle for describing them abstractly. Suppose you have an application where you need to stack crap on top of other crap so that you can't read any of it. Well, this device is exactly what you need!

Seriously, take a look at the screenshot of this thing running:

Stacking crap so you can't read it [xyzcomputing.com]

In that pic, you can read everything, but it is clear that if you use your computer for things like text, this would be a nearly unusable monitor.

I love the article's conclusion:

Also, the technology, once refined, could be applied to displays with many layers, allowing for even more complex three-dimensional diagrams, such as skyscraper floor-plans, or "data clouds" with more than merely two levels within the depth hierarchy.[Poster's note: HOLY CRAP A 3D DISPLAY? THAT WOULD CHANGE THE WORLD IF it wasn't 25 years old.] Yet another possibility would be to juxtapose two or more different display formats in the same manner. Using a combination of standard LCD displays with super-bright OLED displays might lead to some interesting effects, making the distinguishing factors between layers consist of more factors than merely depth.

As innovators, I tip my hat to Puredepth, and I truly hope to see more products from them in the future.

Re:3D

[mattdm]

Two layers is not deep enough for 3D, you would need hundres of layers. But I doubt the technology described in TFA even attempts this.

You're mistaken. With two eyes, two layers is all you need.

Re:Zounds!

[wyldeone]

In that pic, you can read everything, but it is clear that if you use your computer for things like text, this would be a nearly unusable monitor.

While I won't comment on the practical applications of this monitor, your comment shows a lack of understanding about photography. Since the camera taking the picture can only take one in 2 dimensions, the true dimensiality of the monitor cannot be grasped through a photo.

I would look at this monitor in person before making any cracks about its usability.

not quie ready for general use

[icepick72]

The poster of the article says "It is mainly targeted at medical and business fields but it could be used all over"

However the article says: "Several quirks related to the product's design make it somewhat impractical for generalized use."

Slashdot has reached a new level of article posting. Now the poster doesn't have to RTFA anymore.

Most of these assumptions are too direct

[marcsiry]

Seems like most of the naysayers are just assuming you'd use this screen to simply overleave two 2D displays.

This is linear thinking- sort of like assuming that the powerful GPUs in video cards would only ever be used to render chrome spheres floating over checkerboard floors. Instead, different, more clever uses (like Quartz and Core Image) have emerged for that seemingly extravagant and surplus capability.

Similarly, I fell like somthing like this will be used to add an intangible quality to the dry 2d display- 'life' or 'vibrance.'

Imagine two displays that render the exact same image, except in the areas where it's tracking your eyes or mouse, the images are more in phase while the rest of the screen goes out of phase.

It could literally help focus your attention on the important info, where today's screens are limited to color, 'boldness' and opacity.

I think we won't see the real usefluness of this until it's had time for creative people to tinker with working examples of it, which is the case for most technology, really.

Re:Most of these assumptions are too direct

[back_pages]

Imagine two displays that render the exact same image, except in the areas where it's tracking your eyes or mouse, the images are more in phase while the rest of the screen goes out of phase.

Ok, and now let's imagine paying for 1 display and an API function that does a blur effect on areas that are not near the mouse. Your method requires a $1800 display. My method requires an API function and existing graphics hardware.

I think we won't see the real usefluness of this until it's had time for creative people to tinker with working examples of it, which is the case for most technology, really.

Ok, fair enough. This is just like the way the world changed when someone put TWO CD-ROM drives in ONE computer, except you had two independent, functional, useful CD-ROM drives. This looks like an $1800 way to have almost 1 useful display.