Plasma panel collapse coming soon?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:42:36 -0500, "Randy Sweeney"
<rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
>
>
>> Not practical for high resolution and, also, would bypass some
>> connections essential for subconscious visual processing because of
>> the anatomy. Even direct retinal stimulation is probably better
>> accomplished via the lens since the receptor array is only very
>> approximately regular, although certainly not evenly spaced.
>>
>> Kal
>
>IMO, some of the best work in this area is using holographic optical
>elements to "bypass" the lens and gets direct mapping of the retina

Hard to account for the receptor matrix irregularity either way.

Kal


>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:13ljs0h7lvkj330hr1tsf4a27k3mvulaic@4ax.com...

>>IMO, some of the best work in this area is using holographic optical
>>elements to "bypass" the lens and gets direct mapping of the retina
>
> Hard to account for the receptor matrix irregularity either way.
>
> Kal

no one yet has the resolution for 1:1 matchup anyway... this is just an
elegant way to get the image on the retina so that it is focused properly at
all the points.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney wrote:

> "Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:13ljs0h7lvkj330hr1tsf4a27k3mvulaic@4ax.com...
>
>
>>>IMO, some of the best work in this area is using holographic optical
>>>elements to "bypass" the lens and gets direct mapping of the retina
>>
>>Hard to account for the receptor matrix irregularity either way.
>>
>>Kal
>
>
> no one yet has the resolution for 1:1 matchup anyway... this is just an
> elegant way to get the image on the retina so that it is focused properly at
> all the points.
>

Of course that assumes that rods and cones represent pixels in the
visual subsystem of the brain.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:39:41 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
<nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

>Of course that assumes that rods and cones represent pixels in the
>visual subsystem of the brain.

Good point and, clearly, they do not. Only the central foveal cones
have a direct 1:1:1 connection to optic nerve fibers while all the
others converge to a varying degree.

Kal

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message

> Of course that assumes that rods and cones represent pixels in the visual
> subsystem of the brain.
>
> Matthew

Since your eye lens optics consists of a simple convex refractive lens,
that's kinda given by physics

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:q25ks011qnjkodm5sj2qsj0n41ufftps7m@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:39:41 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>
>>Of course that assumes that rods and cones represent pixels in the
>>visual subsystem of the brain.
>
> Good point and, clearly, they do not. Only the central foveal cones
> have a direct 1:1:1 connection to optic nerve fibers while all the
> others converge to a varying degree.
>
> Kal


the image input onto the retina is a simple real image, so processing behind
the curtain doesn't matter.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>The important thing about this is that it should start 42-60" HD displays
>*down* in price but *up* in resolution and quality.

Quite possibly, but keep in mind that there is no broadcast currently anywhere
near the full 1920X1080 resolution. The best that's currently out there is
about 1400X1080. With the severe bandwidth limitations, things won't improve
for quite awhile. This is one of the reasons that some of the HD channels on
DirecTV look like poop. HDNet movies is absolutely terrible, almost looks like
VHS.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Vidguy7 (vidguy7@aol.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> >The important thing about this is that it should start 42-60" HD displays
> >*down* in price but *up* in resolution and quality.
>
> Quite possibly, but keep in mind that there is no broadcast currently anywhere
> near the full 1920X1080 resolution. The best that's currently out there is
> about 1400X1080.

I think that non-broadcast content (HD-DVD, computer inputs, etc.) will
help drive things.

There's a display in my local Best Buy with a computer connected to a
40" or so flat panel that looks great. It's the first big display I
have seen that looks awesome with computer input. It's just needs more
pixels.

Also, a display that can do 1080p solves a lot of the issues with
compromising quality for one of the HD formats. Both 720p and 1080i will
benefit.

--
Jeff Rife | "I feel the need...the need for
SPAM bait: | expeditious velocity"
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov | -- Brain

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>How does that LCD fare for motion artifacts? Isn't the problem with
>flat panel LCDs the smearing you get?

Most of the LCDs I've seen don't scale SD material as well as some other
technologies. But, the motion smearing that was so bad just a couple of years
ago, is much improved. Also keep in mind that a 1920X1080 display (like the
Sharp 45") must do more scaling with SD broadcasts than a lower resolution
panel. This is why many people complain about the picture quality of SD
material on the Sharp.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
>news:q25ks011qnjkodm5sj2qsj0n41ufftps7m@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:39:41 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
>> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>>
>>>Of course that assumes that rods and cones represent pixels in the
>>>visual subsystem of the brain.
>>
>> Good point and, clearly, they do not. Only the central foveal cones
>> have a direct 1:1:1 connection to optic nerve fibers while all the
>> others converge to a varying degree.
>>
>> Kal
>
>
>the image input onto the retina is a simple real image, so processing behind
>the curtain doesn't matter.

It does matter because, since only the small section of the field of
view that the eye is looking at directly is presented to the brain in
pixel for pixel detail and the rest is some kind of summary, only that
portion of the image needs to _be_ in pixel for pixel detail and the
rest can be presented in any form which can cause the same summary to
reach the brain. All you have to do is track the eye movements and
sharpen up the image which falls on the central part of the retina.

If you don't believe that the detail is missing from the outer
portions of the field of view, try this experiment. Look directly
at the word _be_ in the center of the above paragraph. Without moving
your eye from that point, try to read any of the words more than 3
words away from it in any direction. If you can, make sure you're
not moving your eye.



joemooreaterolsdotcom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Joe Moore" <munged@bad.example.com> wrote in message
news:go8ls0lc2l24s06gsc3i5q1onlbfp5j6cl@4ax.com...
> "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
>>news:q25ks011qnjkodm5sj2qsj0n41ufftps7m@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:39:41 -0500, "Matthew L. Martin"
>>> <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Of course that assumes that rods and cones represent pixels in the
>>>>visual subsystem of the brain.
>>>
>>> Good point and, clearly, they do not. Only the central foveal cones
>>> have a direct 1:1:1 connection to optic nerve fibers while all the
>>> others converge to a varying degree.
>>>
>>> Kal
>>
>>
>>the image input onto the retina is a simple real image, so processing
>>behind
>>the curtain doesn't matter.
>
> It does matter because, since only the small section of the field of
> view that the eye is looking at directly is presented to the brain in
> pixel for pixel detail and the rest is some kind of summary, only that
> portion of the image needs to _be_ in pixel for pixel detail and the
> rest can be presented in any form which can cause the same summary to
> reach the brain. All you have to do is track the eye movements and
> sharpen up the image which falls on the central part of the retina.


The pixel resolution figures I have quoted include the increased resolution
of the fovea and the lowered resolution of the periphery.

The point is that you don't have to do a massive non-linear remapping of the
image to get it onto the retina and then into the visual system.

But that the resolution of human sight is STILL incredibly massive compared
to current imaging state of the art and capability... image how difficult it
would be if we had eagle eyes.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote

> WalMart is sells 27" NTSC CRT sets for $177 -- an incredible $6.5 per inch
> (an equivalent $400 for a 60" display)
>
> and DVD+R/W recorders are going for $139
>
> and people are making money on this.... Amazing

Yes it's amazing how productive female Chinese teenagers can be. Very little
of this gets back to them, however.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:29:49 -0500, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:


>Clearing out the whole wall for the panel isn't something people are
>going to do.


heck, I want all four walls the ceiling and the floor lit up

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote in message


> Yes it's amazing how productive female Chinese teenagers can be. Very
> little of this gets back to them, however.

As Chevalier sang " Thank heavens... for little girls."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney wrote:

> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
>
> > Of course that assumes that rods and cones represent pixels in the
> > visual subsystem of the brain.
>
> Since your eye lens optics consists of a simple convex refractive
> lens, that's kinda given by physics

Um, the brain doesn't work in terms of pixels at all. It works in
terms of edges -- the image gets converted into geometrical abstracts
at an early stage of processing, like a CAD drawing instead of a
PhotoShop image. That conversion actually begins inside the retina,
before the brain even sees it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

waystation wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:29:49 -0500, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Clearing out the whole wall for the panel isn't something people are
>>going to do.
>
>
>
> heck, I want all four walls the ceiling and the floor lit up
>
>

Then you are waiting for OLED displays. That is the only technology that
will be able to do that.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Paul Kienitz" <paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote in message
news:1103844169.307388.199490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Randy Sweeney wrote:
>
>> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
>>
>> > Of course that assumes that rods and cones represent pixels in the
>> > visual subsystem of the brain.
>>
>> Since your eye lens optics consists of a simple convex refractive
>> lens, that's kinda given by physics
>
> Um, the brain doesn't work in terms of pixels at all. It works in
> terms of edges -- the image gets converted into geometrical abstracts
> at an early stage of processing, like a CAD drawing instead of a
> PhotoShop image. That conversion actually begins inside the retina,
> before the brain even sees it.

agreed... but since with display technology (any type), we can only paint
images onto the surface of the retina, it makes no difference... all that
fun stuff happens behind the curtain whether or not the image is painted by
the lens from a scene or by a scanning laser or by a LCD whose output is
painted via an HOE onto the retina.

Now, doing the image "injection" in the optic nerve or the brain is much
more difficult thanks to all that signal processing you speak of. The cat's
brain guys did it with a set of known input images and a neural net to
decode the cat's visual encoding. Once done, the neural net derived decoding
system also worked for novel images, which is good - would have been even
more difficult if the cat's brain had adaptive processing that changed on
the fly depending on the image.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>But that the resolution of human sight is STILL incredibly massive compared
>to current imaging state of the art and capability... image how difficult it
>would be if we had eagle eyes.

Then there is the minor little detail that human eyes are constantly darting
back and forth a little bit to get a slightly different angle on things, so
especially if you are trying to do 3-D imaging (which you might as well go
for if you are projecting on the retina), then you need to take the movement
into account, otherwise the viewer gets very very woozy .

(Heck, most computer games make me sick already).
--
>>==>> The *Best* political site <URL:http/www.vote-smart.org/> >>==+
email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL |
<URL:http/home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley> Free Software and Politics <<==+

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Thomas A. Horsley" <tom.horsley@att.net> wrote in message
news:ufz1wr280.fsf@att.net...
> >But that the resolution of human sight is STILL incredibly massive
> >compared
>>to current imaging state of the art and capability... image how difficult
>>it
>>would be if we had eagle eyes.
>
> Then there is the minor little detail that human eyes are constantly
> darting
> back and forth a little bit to get a slightly different angle on things,
> so
> especially if you are trying to do 3-D imaging (which you might as well go
> for if you are projecting on the retina), then you need to take the
> movement
> into account, otherwise the viewer gets very very woozy .
>
> (Heck, most computer games make me sick already).

I was going to say... woozy heck, I get nauseated, but then again, Steve
Mann went around with his duct tape borg suit for years while he was at MIT
and he (and the other discount borg up there) didn't throw up all the time -
but then he only had one eye "augmented" most of the time until he got his
stereo "buddy holly" glasses. So maybe you can learn to accept that some
stuff in your visual field moves with your head and some with your eyes.

But I agree, eye & head tracking is important to getting it both real and
endurable if the image is going to be painted directly.... just another
consumer of processing power to get in line.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:vPednZVNB83ThVbcRVn-gw@magma.ca...
>
> "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote
>
>> WalMart is sells 27" NTSC CRT sets for $177 -- an incredible $6.5 per
>> inch (an equivalent $400 for a 60" display)
>>
>> and DVD+R/W recorders are going for $139
>>
>> and people are making money on this.... Amazing
>
> Yes it's amazing how productive female Chinese teenagers can be. Very
> little of this gets back to them, however.

Hmmm..... that opens a whole 'nother conversation... hehehe