Paper Capable Of Playing Videos Developed 332
Makarand writes "Nature has posted an article describing paper capable of displaying video using rearrangeable electronic ink, being produced by Philips Research Labs (in the Netherlands). The paper-display draws
power from a lightweight battery, and displays data stored in a portable chip. The display consists of pixels containing a drop of colored ink that can spread over a reflective white background under electrical control to create colors. With fast switching times and lower switching voltages, these paper-displays are capable of displaying video images."
Marketing madness! (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if the advent of multimedia paper, as it were, will create a sea-change in the nature of all types of advertising.
As it stands now, most every box/can/available-surface of products is in some way branded advertising for the product, like, your coke can says, naturally, "Coca-Cola". This advertising must translate into some approximately-calculable value for the Coca-Cola company, in terms of more coke sales.
But... is there an inflection point at which an ad for something else (say, Porsche cars) would be more valuable than the advertisement for coke? If so, might companies sell space on all manner of products wrapped in this multimedia-paper like banner ads?
It might be interesting to open my refrigerator and see a few-dozen multimedia presentations on various consumer goods, changing every morning, but... well, maybe a final trip in that Porsche to some Amish community might be more sanity-preserving.
Impressive. Now, when does it ship? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Marketing madness! (Score:4, Interesting)
"Great" frequency? (Score:5, Interesting)
The frequency would be great, would hurt your eyes after a couple minutes I would guess...
I guess that depends on what you mean by a "great" frequency. In Europe, television has a frequency of 50Hz (it's 60Hz in the US) - even if I've heard that two and two frames are alike, in other words that the frequency is 25 or 30Hz. Movies in theaters are usually run at 24 frames per second, in other words a frequency of 24Hz.
There is no real need to have frequencies running much higher than that to watch a movie - since a frequency of 72Hz would just mean that the same picture would be drawn three times over, and thats a waste on a device like this.
In addition, there might not make much sence in talking about frequeny at all on a device like this; if they want to save on power, they only alter the state of the pixels that actually changes between each frame.
Not e-books, perhaps, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll still take real dead trees over electronic paper for my leisure reading, I think, but how about the opposite application: writing? "Print" a document to the paper, mark it up in a meeting, and have the changes all saved without having to go back and mark it up again on your PC. Alternatively, take the paper to your favorite country getaway, write up a story, and (assuming your handwriting is decently legible) have it automatically OCR'd into text for later editing, without needing to lug a laptop around and all the associated annoyances.
I dunno, sounds good to me . . .
Re:I welcome our new e-paper overloads... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:But how do you get color? (Score:1, Interesting)
The poster is trying to allude to the fact that a combination of colors creates whites and grays, not color. I do however disagree that the cots must be stacked to create visible color.
If the dots were tiny enough, it would be possible to use CMYK by dropping uneeded colors to white, and using all of the colors together to create a very dark black, while still keep fairly vibrant colors.
For example, a book with only the cyan and yellow colors highlighted would create a nice dark teal color. Now say if every other yellow was highlighted, it would make an even darker color.
One interesting thing to note: in the picture of their array, it looks like K (blacK) is a very dark blue. I'm sure it looks black to the naked eye, though
A one page book? (Score:2, Interesting)
Often time I like the tactile feedback of holding a book in my hands. I like that it doesn't make a noise unless I ruffled the pages, no humming fan or whining battery...but, I don't like turning pages and diverting my eyes from the left to right sides, especially when reading in bed.
All jokes aside, I like to read with one hand curling the left side underneath the back of the book which makes reading the right side of the book great, and the left side a pain.
Re:I welcome our new e-paper overloads... (Score:5, Interesting)
You can blame better diagnosis (or misdiagnosis) if you want, but really I'm not sure the typical human is really meant to be as smart as society now days expects it to be. A natural human living off of the land really needs to know nothing more than how to make a spear, run from big beasts, and keep out of the rain.
Technology (be it tending crops or inventing holodecks for wild endless regret-free sexual encounters), builds on technology. Each generation has tools and knowledge that previous generations didn't have. At what point will it reach a level where few people can cope? Even now days most poeple haven't got a clue what's going on inside a computer. Most people haven't got any idea how a telephone, automobile, or television works.
How many times have you heard someone say "I don't need that many features on my TV/VCR/Microwave/etc"?
Some people evolve with the times, others just learn to cope, but more and more I think we're going to see people who simply can't hack it all. As more and more people become unable to deal with it, I can honestly see us finding a name for whatever disorder they supposedly have, fiding some medication for it, and then sending them on along their way.
We'll think they're slow, or stupid, or have no common sense, but in reality, these people could probably make a spear and hide in a cave as well (maybe even better) than the other overly cereberal upright hairless apes.
Re:Not e-books, perhaps, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Xerox has been there, done that:
"Through a chemical process that Xerox is holding as a trade secret, "each ball is given an electric charge, with more on one side than on the other," Sheridon explains. So when an electric field is applied to the surface of the sheet, the balls are lifted in their oil-filled cells, rotated like the needles of tiny compasses to point either their black or their white hemispheres eyeward, and then slammed against the far wall of the cell. There they stick, holding the image, until they are dislodged by another field. At high voltages, the balls stick before completing their rotation, thus producing various shades of gray. Sheridon's group has also produced red-and-white displays and is working on combining balls of various hues to produce full-color ones.
(...)
But the real goal, Sheridon says, is also the most distant: an electronic surrogate for paper. Engineer Matt Howard hands me a wooden pencil that is plugged into a weak power supply. As I write on the sheet, the tiny electric field conducted through the pencil's graphite core darkens the screen wherever the tip touches. Howard is working on a handheld wand that will receive text and images from a computer and scan them onto a Gyricon page, which would then be annotated, photocopied, erased--but not discarded."
Copy of the Scientific American article is here [deusto.es] , but you may find other references.
Re:"Great" frequency? (Score:5, Interesting)
TV has a field rate of 50/50 hz. Fields are alternately the odd and even lines of the picture, so the frame rate is 25/30 hz. The two fields are spatially slightly separated, so even on a still picture they are not the same; the second field gives you more information than the first. But if the original capture mechanism was a video camera, the two fields are captured at different times as well as different places, so it gives better motion display.
There is no real need to have frequencies running much higher than that to watch a movie - since a frequency of 72Hz would just mean that the same picture would be drawn three times over, and thats a waste on a device like this.
You are correct that film is at 24 hz. However, cinema projectors deliberatly flicker the light at 48 hz to give an impression of better movement. Once you get the trick of it, it is quite easy to spot 24-frame film material on TV, and it can become annoying.
50/60 hz field rate, and making a frame out of two fields, are both in fact economy measures. When TV was first invented, high rates were difficult and expensive, and there was a tradeoff between picture quality and cost. In fact, percieved movement quality increases up to frame rates in the low 70s of Hz - hence 80Hz being "as good as you will ever need".
A frame will be displayed 3 times at 72 hz only if it is sourced from a traditional film camers - a breed which is slowly dying out. All news cameras are now electronic, and Lucas is filming the Star Wars series electronically - othere will follow, slowly. Some of the new HDTV standards have 60 true frames, not 60 fields, per second.
As I say, existing TV standards are a compromise for the tradeoffs of an earlier day. We will eventially get newer standards, and hence better pictures. But once a set of standards are embedded in the comsumer marketplace, there is a massive lag in the adoption of new standards.
Voila! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:guess what: (Score:5, Interesting)
Ads? What Ads?
Re:Marketing madness! (Score:5, Interesting)
If annoying animation gets out of hand, a few seconds in a microwave oven will probably fix the problem. ;-)
--
Simon
Re:I welcome our new e-paper overloads... (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of us are so used to all the things we need to know by now but many people out there, my parents for example, are afraid of ATM machines, TiVo, computers, cell phones, fax machines, digital answering machines, call waiting, cd players, DVD players (why do you need a menu, I want to push in the tape and press play!). They just simply can't deal with much modern technology. My mother doesn't want to have to remeber how to do anything. If she can't figure it out on intuition, then she won't be bothered. That said, many Slashdotters may be aware of the sudden loss of literacy many people suffer from wjile in front of a computer
(I get a call in my room at school. It's my mother. It's [I assume the computer] asking me: "Do you wish to save this document," what should I do? Well, do you want to save it? Yes. Then press Save. Oh, ok, that took care of it, thanks, click)
I end up being goaded into doing all her typing because she simply doesn't want to learn how to use a word processor. They can't cope for some reason.
I, however seem to maybe force a bit too much of it on them because I'm a huge technophile. Gotta go, my mother is in the next room screaming: "What is this TiVo central thing. WHERE IS MY TELEVISION!"
Re:Impressive. Now, when does it ship? (Score:1, Interesting)
Well the article says that: High-resolution monochrome electronic paper is already on the verge of commercialization, produced by Massachusetts-based company
High resolution monochrome electronic paper has been on the verge of commercialization for years now, ans I expect it to stay on the verge for years to come.
This material may actually become useful in the near term for billboards and other signs where high resolution is not needed. (though in the samples I have seen they still have a significant problem with the contrast being too low. But I'll believe in commercially viable high resolution electronic paper when I can buy it at Fry's
The killer app that I would like this stuff to enable is a compact, lightweight, high battery life e-book reader that doesn't make you want to pluck your eyeballs out after reading a couple of paragraphs. If they could get the resolution up (Yes, I know I'm dreaming, but I want 1200 dpi) and resolve all issues with contrast and glare AND deliver to market at a reasonable price this could be exciting stuff. At least that's my take when I started watching for its imminent commercialzation (4 years ago)
Re:Marketing madness! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Great" frequency? (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, I find movement in movies very distracting because the image flashes painfully. Widescreen movies are the worst because your peripheral vision is more sensitive to movement. I think 24 fps for movies is too low, we should have a new cine standard with a higher frame rate. Maybe 36 fps.
Well, I can dream, can't I?