Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Portables Hardware

World's Smallest Projector 246

Posted by samzenpus from the there-are-no-small-roles dept.
SkinnyGuy writes "Mixed into all of PCMag's CES preview coverage is an interesting story about a projector that's no bigger than an iPod. An early version showed up at last year's CES, but some of the guts weren't inside the small body. Now they are. It uses lasers to project the image. Really fascinating, futuristic stuff."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World's Smallest Projector More

World's Smallest Projector

Comments Filter:

  • Underwater Projection (Score:5, Funny)

    by daddyrief ( 910385 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @03:06AM (#21892044) Homepage
    Don't let the, sharks get a hold, of this one...

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by gynosaur ( 225758 )
      Help me Obi Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope!

  • Obligitory laser post (Score:3, Funny)

    by stas2k ( 951288 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @03:07AM (#21892046) Homepage
    Frickin' lasers! Now all we need is some sharks.
  • Mixed into all of PCMag's CES preview coverage is an interesting story about a projector that's no bigger than an iPod.

    I think the fact that they're missing in all of this, is that porn doesn't care what size it is.

  • now that is progress (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jacquesm ( 154384 ) <j@wwAUDEN.com minus poet> on Thursday January 03, 2008 @03:15AM (#21892084) Homepage
    Finally something that is not wasting 90% of it's energy as heat, not to mention replacing ridiculously expensive bulbs every few hundred hours.
    A low intensity version of this and you don't need a projection area any more, just beam it in directly :)
    note to self: do not stare into laser with remaining eye...

    • Re:now that is progress (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03, 2008 @05:40AM (#21892632)
      Actually.. their original product plan had the image directly beamed into your eye... virtual retinal display. Rumor has it that Bill Gates suggested they turn it around and point it at a wall instead. Their "Power of one" motto pointed out that there were no problems with dead pixels ( unless of course you lost one color or the "one" pixel ). The nicest part in my opinion is that there is no focus as the image is being transmitted from what would be the focal point ( hence the "virtual image" bit ). I suspect this focus-less projector will allow better "surround" virtual reality systems.. just blast the image onto full-face visor! They must've thought of this.. it's such an obvious use?

        As far as the laser.. I don't think it uses a laser anymore.. the led update was surprisingly richer and made the laser version look like chicken scratches.

        Nice to see they might make some money off of this technology instead of turning into a boring barcode scanning company. Maybe they had some other money makers to shake lately?

  • I refer you to my signature... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kawahee ( 901497 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @03:16AM (#21892090) Homepage Journal
    Why is that comma there?

    It uses, lasers to project the image
    I thought that we had editors to check for this sort of, thing.

  • My Hope (Score:3, Funny)

    by robbiedo ( 553308 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @03:18AM (#21892102)
    I hope to hook this up to my laptop while playing Duke Nukem Forever with Chinese Democracy blaring on my stereo. What the heck, lets throw Obama a bone and have him in the White House.

  • Laptops (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ianare ( 1132971 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @03:20AM (#21892112)
    This would be awesome for an ultra-portable laptop: just a keyboard without the screen, just project onto any wall ... or use a very light roll-up screen.

    • Re:Laptops (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ZJVavrek ( 952066 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @03:28AM (#21892150)
      Or one of those laser keyboards. Like this. http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/8193/ [thinkgeek.com] Get some reasonably powerful device, add the two of those and maybe some kind of location sensing finger ring for a mouse... voilà, now you have a justifiable reason for Linux on your cell phone. Not that you needed one.

    • Re:Laptops (Score:5, Funny)

      by johannesg ( 664142 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @03:29AM (#21892156)
      You want to combine this with a projected keyboard (http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/8193/ [thinkgeek.com]). And possibly a wiimote-based multitouch interface instead of a mouse. Add a bit of cackling and you'll look like a mad wizard!

      You know what, I think the 21st century has arrived at last!

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by StarfishOne ( 756076 )
        "Add a bit of cackling and you'll look like a mad wizard!"


        Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke


        :D

      • How well does a keyboard like that work for touch typing? I usually rest my fingers on the keys. How would this device tell the difference between resting your fingers on the table, and actually pressing a key? Also, what happens when you press a key that is obstructed from it's field of view. I often hit the left alt key by sliding my thumb under my palm to press it with the side of my thumb. Also, the lack of any tactile feedback would be terrible.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cnettel ( 836611 )
          I got one as a gift from a 10^100 company. I felt quite comfortable with it, and I am a touch typer. I think that it generally just detected hits for normal keys (hence not resting). The real issue for me was that it simply wasn't able to track my normal speed of writing, the specs said it could detect 10 hits per second, and I certainly exceed that in quite long bursts. This is reasonably something that can be improved by better processing. The lack of tactile feedback will of course always be an issue, th
          • It also doesn't seem that much smaller than those foldable laptop style keyboards. What advantages would it have over that?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by cnettel ( 836611 )
              I haven't looked too much at the foldable ones, but I can tell you that it is light and they keys just about full-size when projected properly. The size is basically to get the proper distance between the projector and the detector. From a technology standpoint, I see it more as a proof-of-concept, where the projector and detector could be integrated into a cellphone, without really increasing the size that much. Again, the ability to switch between touchpad and keyboard functionality is also kind of neat,

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by artg ( 24127 )
      Still needs some work to match Asimov's idea, though.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Radiant [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by smithberry ( 714364 )
      Made me think of this futuristic device I read about middle of last (!) year with a computer no larger than a pen: http://tech-nex.blogspot.com/2007/07/glance-intothe-future-computer.html [blogspot.com] A small laser projector is a step towards the future :-)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by RedBear ( 207369 )

      This would be awesome for an ultra-portable laptop: just a keyboard without the screen, just project onto any wall ... or use a very light roll-up screen.

      Exactly what I was saying to my wife a couple of weeks ago. The fact is that we're about one step away from having this ultra-portable computer already. As soon as Apple updates the iPhone and iPod Touch to support A) Bluetooth keyboards and B) outputting a higher resolution like the 848x480 resolution supported by this projector, a large portion of modern society will have all the "computer" they need. After all, there are a great many people out there that do nothing but email and web browsing with their

    • A project that can fit in your pocket, project a 848x480 image at virtually any distance, use so little power that it can run on batteries, not get hot to the touch, and costs less than $300?!?!? Are you kidding me!?!? This one is a no-brainner. This thing will sell like hotcakes if they can deliver on the promises.

  • Possibilities for embedded devices? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zykhou ( 1045884 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @03:23AM (#21892128)

    While I'm sure the original price tag will be steep, this product could actually have some pretty sweet applications.

    Imagine a singular device, the size of a cell phone, that could be a wholly working portable computer. You set it down and it projects a screen wherever you need it. Imagine that projector with something like this [thinkgeek.com], and some sort of mouse replacement, and you'd have all your IO needs on the go. Instead of being restricted to tiny screens and keyboards, your portable device could be competition for your main desktop (which seems to be the route that consumer electronics are heading).

    I know I can't wait for the day when I carry around one wallet sized (or smaller) device that is an audio player, a cell phone, and feature complete computer, capable of being used for the same applications my laptop is for, but with far less weight and size. Hopefully with devices like this, I won't have to wait until I'm near dead to enjoy such luxuries.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by cheater512 ( 783349 )
      TFA says $200 - $300. :)

      • TFA says $200 - $300. :)

        Something tells me the TV manufacturers will buy this company out and sit on the invention... as it will directly clash with their very profitable flat screen market that they've just spent gajillions of dollars on ramping up capacity for...

        • The resolution is terrible compared to a modern TV (or even standard projector), plus I'd imagine it won't be incredibly bright. Standard projectors are already heavily washed out by light, one that has a fraction of the brightness doesn't stand a chance as a TV.

  • Maybe smaller (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There's another projector called the Explay Oio that looks smaller: http://www.mobilewhack.com/explay-oio-the-first-real-pocket-nano-projector-on-dispaly-at-sid-2007/ [mobilewhack.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by doti ( 966971 )
      not only smaller, but 9 months earlier.
      • Or even earlier from the olden days of mid 2006, Mitsubishi's PK20 PocketProjector [mitsubishi...ations.com].
        • I don't know about the earlier one(site is blocked by my work's firewall), but the PK20 is a miniaturized standard projecter - the SHOW uses a currently unique display method.

          The SHOW looks to be a bit bigger than an Ipod, while the PK20 is 4x5x2", much larger. Probably dimmer as well, as it's only 25 ANSI lumens(and the next smallest I remember off the top of my head was 800). Oh, and don't forget that the SHOW also contains a battery sufficient for an hour or two's usage.

          Personally, I'd like to see a sl

  • Would be great for multi touch touchscreen (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mrjb ( 547783 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @03:24AM (#21892138)
    Lately I've been giving some thought about how the hard part of multi-touch touch panel [youtube.com] is the projection. Such a screen can be built from a sheet of glass+webcam, but the problem is that projecting an image back onto it requires a rather expensive projector. A $200-$300 laser projector would take this into the realm of 'affordable' technology.

    It could also render the OLED technology of the 'optimus maximus' keyboard obsolete- many people have a second VGA port that they do not use. Using this port to display a key map onto an essentially transparent keyboard would do the same. It could also allow people to choose the decoration to be displayed on the rest of their keyboard.
  • Very cool indeed. Now where can we go with screen tech? Water vapour? Smoke screen? How about the in between thumb/forefinger thing I've seen in some futuristic shows? Instant on with a hand gesture.

  • This Isn't Going to be Good for the Community (Score:5, Funny)

    by matty619 ( 630957 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @03:32AM (#21892174)
    And just think, by simply using 50 mW lasers, it will now be possible for the masses to skywrite commercials on the cloud cover. Or at the very least, everyone can have their own Bat Signal Device. Or project a 500' Goatse on a downtown sky scraper. I don't see how this can possibly go wrong. -M@

    • Re:This Isn't Going to be Good for the Community (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jacquesm ( 154384 ) <j@wwAUDEN.com minus poet> on Thursday January 03, 2008 @05:30AM (#21892592) Homepage
      I think your power calculations for skywriting are off by several orders of magnitude. That sort of laser is best not used near anything combustible either, not unless you want it to combust that is :)

      A friend of mine who pioneered lasers in pop music (for Genesis in the Peter Gabriel days) once turned down a proposal to implement this because of the limited range of conditions when it would operate and the enormous power levels required, it's a bit of a difference to project something on a wall 5' away from you vs on a semi-transparant medium several hundred meters away. Of course you don't need to take my word for it, or you may have meant your original post in a sarcastic way (but that's hard to tell here sometimes).

      a 50 mW laser will carray a good distance as long as you don't start scanning it, then it quickly becomes useless.

  • MEMS vs Holographs (Score:3, Informative)

    by aphxtwn ( 702841 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @03:44AM (#21892222)
    Last year a different company made news demonstrating a monochrome version of their pico laser projector (PVPro) last year. They used LCoS to generate diffraction patterns rather than using a MEM mirror. http://www.lightblueoptics.com/ [lightblueoptics.com]

  • What's the brightness on it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MSRedfox ( 1043112 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @04:09AM (#21892308)
    I own a PK20 pocket projector. It fits in the palm of my hand, does 800x600 native, and uses ultra-bright LEDs with DLP tech to handle the images. It gets 10,000 hours of lamp life but is fairly dim as a result. It is much brighter then the first gen, PK10, but it still gets washed out easily. In a lightly lit room, I can do a 40" image, and in pitch darkness(or almost black), I can project around 60-70" without issue. I'm curious how the brightness of the lasers will be. Will it be able to project a 5' image in a lit room, or will it need the lights fully dimmed? I also wonder what the viewing angle will be, will it be very narrow with a fast drop off to the sides (which would make it less then ideal for portable presentations). Does anyone have any actual specs on the unit?
    • The only thing on the brightness I could find was this snippet:

      "In the demo at Digital Experience, PicoP cast a vibrant image of Disney's Finding Nemo on a common piece of 8.5-by-11-inch white paper. The image was clear, but the amount of light in the large conference hall did not offer an optimal viewing environment."

      Yes, yes, I know, clicking on a link within the article *and* reading to the end of that article is not considered fair within the slashdot crowd :)

      • "In the demo at Digital Experience, PicoP cast a vibrant image of Disney's Finding Nemo on a common piece of 8.5-by-11-inch white paper. The image was clear, but the amount of light in the large conference hall did not offer an optimal viewing environment."

        Just wait until the MPAA gets word of this. What are the chances PicoP had a public performance licence for Finding Nemo? The company will be sued into bankruptcy before the product gets anywhere near market.

    • I also wonder what the viewing angle will be, will it be very narrow with a fast drop off to the sides (which would make it less then ideal for portable presentations). Does anyone have any actual specs on the unit?
      Doesn't that depend on the projection screen?
      • Why yes it does. Viewing angle should be similar to viewing a painted wall - the perceived narrowing of the image would be a problem long before not seeing the light would be. Have a translucent screen and you'd be able to have rear projection.

        As for power - it doesn't sound bad. If it's anything like many other conventions I've been to - the ambient light level could be described as 'as bright or brighter than outdoors at noon'. If it's still capable of projecting a 'vibrant' image on an 8.5x11" piece

  • Cell phones will have these! (Score:5, Funny)

    by MindPrison ( 864299 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @04:16AM (#21892326) Journal
    No doubt!

    Personally I cant wait - this is TOO much fun, imagine the on-the-fly presentations you can do with this baby, no longer youll have to wave everyone over to your microscopic cell-phone screen to say "watch what I did this weekend".

    Oh wait...

    Thats not good...
  • I don't see how a scanning laser beam can produce a watchable image.

    It'll be a cool toy, sure, but nothing more...

    • Re:I bet the image is horrible (Score:5, Insightful)

      by awol ( 98751 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @04:49AM (#21892446) Journal
      Yeah, those scanning electron beams suck so much, the laser has got to suck too. Right??

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by tgd ( 2822 )
        The scanning electron beam is exciting phosphors that continue to glow long after the beam has passed by.

        With a laser on a standard surface, it has to be bright enough to overwhelm the receptors in your eye so your eye still thinks it sees it until the beam gets back to that spot again.

        Not even remotely similar.
    • It's actually more like, 3 different colored scanning laser beams.

      And if they "Scan" fast enough, you might not be able to notice they scan at all with the naked eye.
    • http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,1205,l=222480&s=27845&a=222482&po=2,00.asp [pcmag.com] The article gives its resolution as 848x480, which is on par with most consumer model projectors. I don't know what the refresh rate is, but the image in the photo looks perfectly watchable. It's quite possible that it'll be flicker-riffic and headache inducing, but as far as image quality goes, it looks fine.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by wjsteele ( 255130 )
      I built a scanning laser projector that can easily update 60 times per second. It wasn't using MEMS either, which are smaller and much faster, but it was using Galvos.

      Considering your eyes work at around 24 frames per second, I'd say it was acceptable. (TV and Computer monitors run at 60fps as well.)

      Now that I think about it, DLP Televisions are using MEMS devices with an array of mirrors that move just as fast... and I've never heard complaints about their refresh rate.

      Bill

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fbjon ( 692006 )
        Just so you know, human eyes don't 'work' at any specific fps.
        • We've done a lot of studies with the human eye's ability to perceive change. And you are correct that they don't run at a certain clock speed, however, they can not discern anything above an average of 20 to 24 frame per second.

          We actually found a few things quite interesting, that in some instances the eye can actually miss a change if it happens too quickly. LED taillights on cars were a problem when they were first being developed because they were turning on too quickly. Some drivers missed that they
          • The whole "24fps" thing was invented by Disney and it relates to smooth *movement*, not lack of flicker.

            Cinemas can get away with lower frame rates because film projectors have a duty cycle where each image stays in place for 90-odd percent of the time then they switch to the next frame as quickly as possible (this is why film projectors make a clattering noise - they jerk the film through the mechanism). This means that most of the time there's a solid image being projected.

            CRT monitors flicker a *lot* at
  • "See that? Its the world's smallest projector showing a blue screen of death just for you"

  • Good (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DerWulf ( 782458 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @04:46AM (#21892438)
    Very cool product. The name sucks though. Google finds 2.560.000.000 hits for "SHOW".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Aladrin ( 926209 )
      I would have modded this insightful, rather than funny. If your product can't be found with a google search, you're making a big mistake. Heck, if you can't walk into a store and ask for it by name, you're making a bit mistake.

      Customer: I'd like to buy a SHOW.
      Best Buy: You'd what?
      Customer: A SHOW. Where are they?
      Best Buy: DVDs are over there. -points-
      Customer: No, a SHOW. It's a projector.
      Best Buy: TVs are over there. -points-

      On the other hand, if you ask for an iMac or Vista, or any other produ

  • Why? (Score:2)

    by Atario ( 673917 )
    Why do projectors always lowball you on the resolution?

    uses tiny lasers to shoot a WVGA (848 by 480, roughly DVD resolution) image
    Come on. Isn't this the age of frickin' HD? Gimme 1920x1080, at least!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Aladrin ( 926209 )
      Are you seriously asking why the first version of a budget projector is 'only' DVD resolution? Can you not figure that out for yourself?
  • For a brief moment I thought it said "World's Smallest Penis" !

    I thought "that's funny I didn't see a webcam in my bathroom this morning" !

  • I don't see how a projector using coherent light can work without ugly speckle patterns in the image. Anyone have any ideas?

    • It won't be coherent any more and speckle shouldn't be much of a problem. You notice speckle with a beam that's fixed in space because you are getting diffraction patterns off dust motes. With a scanning beam, the energy being reflected or diffracted at any point in space is too small to worry about, except very close to the projector exit window, which you aren't looking at anyway.

      In fact something similar applies to a conventional projector; you can see the dust in the air quite clearly close to the beam

  • 848 by 480 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DavidD_CA ( 750156 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @05:34AM (#21892608) Homepage
    Why don't these devices support normal resolutions?

    If they are going through all that trouble to make a really cool tiny projector, can't they figure out how to make it support 1024x768 without resampling the image down?

    I realize that 848 by 480 is used by some video formats and is 16:9, but still. Anyone using this to show a lecture or demonstrate how to use a computer program is going to be disappointed.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by IANAAC ( 692242 )

      I realize that 848 by 480 is used by some video formats and is 16:9, but still. Anyone using this to show a lecture or demonstrate how to use a computer program is going to be disappointed.

      Most of the new (or current, even) UMPCs coming out have 800x480 resolution standard, either on a 7" or 4.5" screen, My guess is that owners of those devices will be the target audience.

  • Why do I get the feeling... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by advocate_one ( 662832 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @05:40AM (#21892634)
    that the MPAA are not going to be impressed with it...

    "It's a great for-use mode when it comes to spontaneously sharing content with your friends," said Russell Hannigan, Microvision's Director of Product Management for Consumer Projection Displays.

    and that they'll insist on it being DRM'd to death

  • Link to the developer's site: http://www.microvision.com/pico_projector_displays/standalone.html [microvision.com]

    Looks like they're pitching this as an accessory for mobile phones as well as mini stand-alone projos.

    A whole new world of mobile phone-related road accidents beckon...

    More positively, I've tried some cars with head-up displays, and they really work. Now if you had a GPS-enabled phone that could project driving instructions onto the screen in front of you...now, that would be cool. Trouble is, you'd probably en

  • zardoz...! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by apodyopsis ( 1048476 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @06:30AM (#21892798)
    anybody remember that Sean Connery scifi flick Zardoz? An good well thought out plot and Charlotte Rampling's knockers could not save it from some hammed up acting and a general public with no intelligence. But one of the cooler points of the film was the rings that all the immortals wore - voice driven data interfaces to the central computer (called the tabernacle if memory serves me well..) and capable of projecting images, movies and information onto any nearby wall with perfect clarity.

    we now have projected keyboards, mini laser projectors and infra-red tracking - come on, lets build our own mini computers and dump those expensive power hungry boxes on our desks. if we could finally solve the porblem of mesh computing and get rid of the ISP monopolies then that would be fantastic as well, lets hope OLPC proves the concept viable..

  • Microthis, Microthat (Score:5, Funny)

    by Conanymous Award ( 597667 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @06:30AM (#21892800)
    What's up with all these companies from Redmond, Washington being called Microsomething? Is Microvision something that is needed to see Bill's Micro-soft?
  • Do not look into projector with remaining eye!
  • Call me when they get it down to the size of a shuffle.
  • Sure, small is cool, but these laser projection systems seem better than LCD/Lens. Lower power, cooler, presumably no need to focus. And can easily be made quite portable at a higher resolution.
  • someone puts it in a laptop? That would make for an interesting board meeting, to put up a powerpoint in the whiteboard, at the point where someone realizes there's no projector in the board room.

    6 years ago no one would have believed it was possible, let alone practical, and certainly not affordable, to have a camera in their laptop lid. Now look what we have - around 50% of the laptops sold today have built-in web-cams. That makes a projector the next logical step.

    Get one of those bluetooth mice that l

  • $200-300? No. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kalewa ( 561267 ) on Thursday January 03, 2008 @10:48AM (#21895056)
    The eeeeeeepc was supposed to be $200 too. That stupid OLED keyboard was supposed to be $500. I don't see this going for less than $600 by the time the bean counters get done with it. For $200-299 it's a toy, and everyone will buy one, but very few companies seem to understand that price point. I'll believe it when I see it.

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Close