Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Displays Hardware

Forget LCDs and LEDs, Here Come LPDs 244

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the i'll-believe-it-when-i-see-it dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Forget LCDs and LEDs, Here Come LPDs

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@nOsPam.gmail.com> on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @10:16AM (#30750822) Journal

    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 [prysm.com], 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 [google.com] (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 [google.com]
    Laser vector scanner systems with display screens having optical fluorescent materials [google.com]
    Optical designs for scanning beam display systems using fluorescent screens [google.com]
    Phosphor Compositions For Scanning Beam Displays [google.com]

    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: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Zediker (885207)
      They shouldnt be any worse than the existing DLP displays which are quite thin since they both utilize similar technology: scanning micro mirrors.
      • by caladine (1290184)
        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.
    • by mea37 (1201159) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @10:28AM (#30750978)

      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.

      • 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.
        • by MoonBuggy (611105)

          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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mea37 (1201159)

          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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by cyberbrian (15778)

        According to: http://www.prysm.com/about_lpd.html [prysm.com]
        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.

    • by ari_j (90255)
      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.
      • by vlm (69642)

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

        Greenwashing market.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by natehoy (1608657)

      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

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Lord Lode (1290856)

        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).

        • by natehoy (1608657)

          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.

    • 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
      • Yeah, I meant to bold THIN RIBBONS.

        Is that THIN enough for you??
        • 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.

    • 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.

    • Similar to LaserVue? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by RingDev (879105)

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

      -Rick

    • by stevew (4845) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @10:50AM (#30751326) Journal

      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.

      • by hitmark (640295)

        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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        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).

    • 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?

  • Argh (Score:4, Funny)

    by Angst Badger (8636) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @10:18AM (#30750838)

    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...

    • by Chrisq (894406)
      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.

    • 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.

  • do not want (Score:3, Interesting)

    by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @10:26AM (#30750954) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • 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.

      • by rezalas (1227518)
        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).
        • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Abcd1234 (188840) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @11:19AM (#30751770) Homepage

      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*

      • 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.)

        • by Abcd1234 (188840)

          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.

    • 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.
    • by Jesus_666 (702802)
      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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pz (113803) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @12:18PM (#30752714) Journal

      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.

  • thickness (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 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.

  • by Walterk (124748) <{gro.mca} {ta} {telbud}> on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @10:27AM (#30750972) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by ewg (158266) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @10:33AM (#30751044)
    About time! I'm sick of the lackluster displays in my command center.
  • phosphor burn? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AmericanGladiator (848223) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @10:34AM (#30751068)
    I didn't see any mention in the article - will it have this horrible weakness that CRTs had?
    • by vlm (69642)

      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.

      • by jcr (53032)

        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

        • by ceoyoyo (59147)

          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: (Score:2, Informative)

      by 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).

    • 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?

      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.
    • 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.

    • by pmontra (738736)
      Good, so screensavers will get again a real reason to exist.
    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      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 pict

  • Mitsubishi LaserVue (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ArhcAngel (247594) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @10:35AM (#30751086)

    How is this better than Mitsubishi's LaserVue [mitsubishi-tv.com] 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.

    • 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.
  • Ouch (Score:3, Interesting)

    by idiotnot (302133) <sean@757.org> on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @10:43AM (#30751212) Homepage Journal

    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).

    • by iangoldby (552781)

      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.

    • by McWilde (643703)
      Is there a specific type of display that will filter out naked people [wikipedia.org] running across the pitch?
    • by jabuzz (182671)

      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.

  • by ionix5891 (1228718) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @10:45AM (#30751248)

    with remaining eye

  • 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.

    • by fluffy99 (870997)

      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).

      • > 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.

      • 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 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).

    • 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.

    • Wait till they add the feature of an ultra cost efficient mono-color option.
  • by Arancaytar (966377) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @10:51AM (#30751360) Homepage

    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 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by C9OE-6015-B8 (1716502)
    This is not far removed from the Scophony projection system of the 1930's. [wikipedia.org]
  • People are spoiled by 80Hz+ now. E-paper is one-half Hertz and too slow.
  • I bet you could do that with electron beams too! And with no moving parts! I should patent that...

  • 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.
  • 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

  • FEDs (Field emission displays) [wikipedia.org] 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.

  • 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 compou

  • 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.

  • 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 suffici

    • by rickb928 (945187)

      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

  • 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 t

  • 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.)

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

    myke

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan

Working...