Apple's patent for an LCD display that also takes photos, video

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 52
    macvaultmacvault Posts: 323member
    I want to see this technology incorporated into transparent OLED display technology so we can have something that looks like this... http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/apple/tra...kup-185119.php
  • Reply 22 of 52
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,039member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thrang View Post


    AGREED!



    I think Apple's decision NOT to offer voice dialing is marketing-driven. Despite the clear need to have this, remember that as soon as they introduce it, millions of iPhones will suddenly remain hidden in pockets, purses, briefcases, an belt clips. And right now, I think Apple wants those iPhone OUT in the OPEN as frequently as possible to garner as much attention as possible. But in reality, they are sacrificing sales and safety by not including this. Voice dialing is very important for a lot a people who make calls in their car, and forcing them to dial from the slippery brick means it will be either unsafe for them (and us fellow drivers) or it will be unsold (may father and wife, despite admiring my iPhone, won't buy for this reason alone).



    I can not use a phone today without this feature. My wife has an iphone and since I work for one of the competitor phone companies I am not allow to use a Iphone at work,. But that is okay, beside the cool factor the iphone offers it does not presently support all the things I currently use on my smart phone, the big one being voice dialing.



    Hands down the iphone is the most dangerous phone to use while driving a car, you can not dial by touch (meaning feeling the keys) and it does not allow voice dialing so you are crazy to even attempt to dial the iphone while driving. You have to look it to dial, no way around this, they do not even offer speed or one button dialing.



    I like the fact that I can say a person name in my address book and phone dials it never requirement me to take my hands off the wheel.
  • Reply 23 of 52
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Macvault View Post


    I want to see this technology incorporated into transparent OLED display technology so we can have something that looks like this... http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/apple/tra...kup-185119.php



    Well, I really hope it's not gonna look like that...



    I remember that Toshiba invented something like that... in 2003!



    http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,11...s/article.html



    Patent war? We'll see!
  • Reply 24 of 52
    suhailsuhail Posts: 192member
    The idea is fantastic, but I don't see how this can work with microscopic cameras and no common lens.
  • Reply 25 of 52
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by suhail View Post


    The idea is fantastic, but I don't see how this can work with microscopic cameras and no common lens.



    I don't think that's a major problem, it might be a very simplified version of a telescope array. It looks like each "camera" could have a single pixel, or maybe a 2x2 array, green red green blue. That could have a microlens above it, and maybe a short tunnel structure to eliminate light outside the desired field of view for the sensor.



    I think the real problem is that all this will make the picture on the display look grainier because of this array of microcameras breaking up the image.
  • Reply 26 of 52
    Jobs must've been absolutely livid when they decided OLED would have to wait (for whatever reason). It is thinner (because it requires NO back light) and uses less battery. Looking at the OLED technology on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oled Can anyone comment for against the idea that OLED is more compatible with the embedded camera??
  • Reply 27 of 52
    lukazlukaz Posts: 10member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I think the real problem is that all this will make the picture on the display look grainier because of this array of microcameras breaking up the image.



    I don't think so.
  • Reply 28 of 52
    lukazlukaz Posts: 10member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post


    Jobs must've been absolutely livid when they decided OLED would have to wait (for whatever reason). It is thinner (because it requires NO back light) and uses less battery. Looking at the OLED technology on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oled Can anyone comment for against the idea that OLED is more compatible with the embedded camera??



    I think that's because OLED is not that cheap yet.
  • Reply 29 of 52
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by palegolas View Post


    It looks really easy on paper with small black dots and all, but I don't have a clue of how well this could work out practically.

    And also, would all these microsensors capture "parallell light"? Making a photo with a really weird or no perspective?



    I assume this would work the way insect eyes do. They also stitch the image together.



    I'm just wondering how the quality of the screen would suffer. The display elements are moved further apart, rather than being almost close enough to touch.



    The other question is how they would incorporate these tiny lens elements, solid or otherwise.



    While the concept is great, more patents on exactly how this would be manufactured would be required before it could actually be made.



    They are requiring several totally different manufacturing technologies on the same screen.
  • Reply 30 of 52
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Not to rain on the mouth-watering parade (I actually agree with you on all of the above) and not that they are mutually exclusive in any way, but I'd like to see cut-copy-paste and voice-activated dialing before anything else.



    Can't believe that it's a year and a quarter now, and Apple still hasn't implemented these two very basic features.



    That's only because they know you want it.
  • Reply 31 of 52
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Just a reminder, Apple did not come up with the idea for this kind of camera-screen. I distinctly remember the introduction of a chip that had these properties years before the Apple patent was announced.



    Also, since the camera lens function would be essentially software based, I don't think the quality could even approach that of a lens. Any engineers care to comment?



    I don't think software is a problem. All single sensor chip cameras have extensive software manipulation done now. That includes the Foveon chip camera.



    The questions revolve about the distance between the sensors, and how many of them there are. I don't see this working for hi rez photos, but that's not likely the intent. 640 x 480 would be great for portable video for conferencig.
  • Reply 32 of 52
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by suhail View Post


    The idea is fantastic, but I don't see how this can work with microscopic cameras and no common lens.



    The way insects do it, by stitching the images together.
  • Reply 33 of 52
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post


    Jobs must've been absolutely livid when they decided OLED would have to wait (for whatever reason). It is thinner (because it requires NO back light) and uses less battery. Looking at the OLED technology on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oled Can anyone comment for against the idea that OLED is more compatible with the embedded camera??



    Depends on how they expect to get the technologies as a manufacturable product.



    It's doable, either way.
  • Reply 34 of 52
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lukaz View Post


    I don't think so.



    I'm concerned about that as well.



    If the display elements are moved, say, 20% further apart because of the sensing elements and their lenses, that means either of two things.



    The first is that there would have to be about 20% fewer display elements per given screen size.



    Two would be that for the same screen resolution, the screen would have to be about 20% larger.
  • Reply 35 of 52
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lukaz View Post


    I think that's because OLED is not that cheap yet.



    I think it's because the right screen isn't yet available, and possibly cost.
  • Reply 36 of 52
    shogunshogun Posts: 362member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Not to rain on the mouth-watering parade (I actually agree with you on all of the above) and not that they are mutually exclusive in any way, but I'd like to see cut-copy-paste and voice-activated dialing before anything else.



    Can't believe that it's a year and a quarter now, and Apple still hasn't implemented these two very basic features.



    Not to mention "To-Do's"!!!
  • Reply 37 of 52
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post


    Hands down the iphone is the most dangerous phone to use while driving a car?



    Hands down, driving and talking on the phone is absolutely one of the most dangerous things you can do. Driving while yapping is similar to driving drunk.



    The level of stupidity involved is off the charts.



    As a pedestrian and cyclist, I can't tell how many times I've nearly been killed when some idiot decides that blabbing on the phone is more important than whatever happens to going on around them. After all THEY ARE the center of the universe.



    Is making that call IMMEDIATELY all THAT important? Why not just stop?



    There are laws against it. they should be enforced.
  • Reply 38 of 52
    irelandireland Posts: 17,794member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Not to rain on the mouth-watering parade (I actually agree with you on all of the above) and not that they are mutually exclusive in any way, but I'd like to see cut-copy-paste and voice-activated dialing before anything else.



    Voice-dialing seems to be a very American thing to do, I guess that's why I never think of that. As for copy & paste. I solved that already, I'm just waiting for Apple to use my damn idea.
  • Reply 39 of 52
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Not to rain on the mouth-watering parade (I actually agree with you on all of the above) and not that they are mutually exclusive in any way, but I'd like to see cut-copy-paste and voice-activated dialing before anything else.



    Can't believe that it's a year and a quarter now, and Apple still hasn't implemented these two very basic features.



    Yep, apparently Apple has no clue what they're doing. Shut down iPhone development. This guy apparently knows the right way to make a phone.



    I'm going to sell mine now and wait for this guy to make THE revolutionary phone that will change the world. All those millions of iPhone users have no idea they bought a dud!



    A whole year and a quarter! My god think of the life that was wasted waiting!
  • Reply 40 of 52
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gmon750 View Post


    Yep, apparently Apple has no clue what they're doing. Shut down iPhone development. This guy apparently knows the right way to make a phone.



    I'm going to sell mine now and wait for this guy to make THE revolutionary phone that will change the world. All those millions of iPhone users have no idea they bought a dud!



    A whole year and a quarter! My god think of the life that was wasted waiting!



    Calm down. I never said it was a dud. (And, fwiwty, I love my iPhone.)
Sign In or Register to comment.