Oh, I HAVE the email. And the email headers that include how it was routed from my machine to Apple, and all that. I didn't make my post to impress anyone, or waste my time. I really did send Apple that email. That doesn't mean they didn't think of it before me. What's done is done and I wish Apple the best.
The lack of eye contact in teleconference / video chat is a problem people have been looking at for quite some time. I myself thought I had a clever idea a few years back to use two cameras, one on each side of the screen or one below and one on top and then reconstruct a synthetic intermediate image based on the stereo images.
I eventually did a search, and it turns out that the approach has been worked on.
It's quite likely somebody was already working on your approach or something close to it.
Anyway, I'm not crazy about in-screen approaches because I feel that image quality should always be the priority, and here you are introducing black spaces or flickering, or both. As far as I can tell, this latest concept would work best with OLED, not LCD, displays, since these have no backlight panel.
“It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran.”
Oh, I HAVE the email. And the email headers that include how it was routed from my machine to Apple, and all that. I didn't make my post to impress anyone, or waste my time. I really did send Apple that email. That doesn't mean they didn't think of it before me. What's done is done and I wish Apple the best.
You may have sent that to Apple, but if memory serves, around that time a new kind of chip was designed (was it Texas Instruments?) that was able to both transmit light and act as a light sensor for potential camera development. So, in essence, it was both a display and camera on a chip. I always remembered this concept, even though I forgot who had the patent.
This is not an indicator for a second camera in the iPhone... On the iPhone's small screen, the difference in viewing angle between lense and screen is hardly an issue. It wouldn't even be noticable. Additionally, this requires a high end display.
I think this is why gloss is being forced on us ... And more is to be forced on us...
Remember this story ?
"Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Apple's patent for an LCD display that also takes photos, video
By Appleinsider Staff
Published: 12:00 PM EST"
Well, if you look in through a matte glass plate that is placed right
up to an art print or an LCD, it works beautifully.
BUT, if you try to look OUT through the same glass plate, toward the room contents, IT IS TOTALLY USELESS -- BLURRED.
So, IMHO, Apple is getting us used to gloss (trying to) so that it can implement this technology.
WHAT ELSE IS BEING FORCED ?
Here is what : we have gone from the clip-on iSight with its featured privacy iris that twists shut for POSITIVE indication of
visual privacy >>> to the built-in, tiny camera that forces us to rely on electronic switch-off (like the mute button on cell phones that nobody trusts) BUT could still be shuttered with tape, etc. >>> to the future where THE SCREEN ITSELF contains an optical phased array (the algorithms must already abound by way of radio astronomy and such ) AND YOU CAN NOT DISABLE IT WITHOUT LOSING USE OF THE SCREEN ITSELF --- cover the screen ? Duh.
It is now known that cell phones can be infected, by governments, with malware that enable the snoopers to turn on the mic with no hint to the user that they are bugged.
It is obvious that the iPhone can not have it's battery removed , on the fly, as many security-minded officials do ; Chenney comes to mind .
It is of little comfort that Google uses "only statistical data" when it listens in on us for sounds of crying babies, barking dogs, motorcycles reving, etc. to pipe ads for pampers, dog chow, and
engine additives. THE POINT IS the barn door IS open and our privacy is gone.
So, why not go VISUAL with this trend ?
Why not a real "1984 " VISI-SCREEN that cannot be turned off, with certainty ?
I hope we don't get the usual dismissive, idiot responses that abound on the "internets" or the spineless "if-you-have-nothing-to-hide-why-worry-about-it" crap from the
conformist corner.
It would be nice if we got a serious response to this.
I thought I was the only one who did that. A very neat, small, circular cover.
Yup, a camera you can't even see isn't such a good idea, especially on a computer that's looking at you or your home all day.
You'll notice that a little green light comes on when the camera is activated. This is an LED that lights automatically when current is passed to the camera, so it is impossible for the camera to activate without this light coming on (unless the LED burns out).
I hope we don't get the usual dismissive, idiot responses that abound on the "internets" or the spineless "if-you-have-nothing-to-hide-why-worry-about-it" crap from the
conformist corner.
\\
Or any of those stupid conspiracy theorists who can spin the big brother thing in every topic you discuss. I hear ya man.
Nobody will probably believe me, but I sent Apple an email in 2003 suggesting to them they embed camera detectors between the pixels of their screens. To this day I wonder if they took my idea and patented it. I am the idiot for not doing that myself in the first place.
Believe it or not, I also thought of that technology! But I'm not a computer engineer, so no way of making it. I've thought of like making use of the "TWO WAY MIRROR" kinda thing. Haha...
Comments
Oh, I HAVE the email. And the email headers that include how it was routed from my machine to Apple, and all that. I didn't make my post to impress anyone, or waste my time. I really did send Apple that email. That doesn't mean they didn't think of it before me. What's done is done and I wish Apple the best.
The lack of eye contact in teleconference / video chat is a problem people have been looking at for quite some time. I myself thought I had a clever idea a few years back to use two cameras, one on each side of the screen or one below and one on top and then reconstruct a synthetic intermediate image based on the stereo images.
I eventually did a search, and it turns out that the approach has been worked on.
It's quite likely somebody was already working on your approach or something close to it.
Anyway, I'm not crazy about in-screen approaches because I feel that image quality should always be the priority, and here you are introducing black spaces or flickering, or both. As far as I can tell, this latest concept would work best with OLED, not LCD, displays, since these have no backlight panel.
“It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran.”
Enz
Oh, I HAVE the email. And the email headers that include how it was routed from my machine to Apple, and all that. I didn't make my post to impress anyone, or waste my time. I really did send Apple that email. That doesn't mean they didn't think of it before me. What's done is done and I wish Apple the best.
You may have sent that to Apple, but if memory serves, around that time a new kind of chip was designed (was it Texas Instruments?) that was able to both transmit light and act as a light sensor for potential camera development. So, in essence, it was both a display and camera on a chip. I always remembered this concept, even though I forgot who had the patent.
The proof is in the pudding as they say though, so if this one works and the other one still doesn't, then it's certainly a winner.
I think they say "the proof is in the putting". Those who say, "pudding" don't really know what they're talking about.
I think they say "the proof is in the putting". Those who say, "pudding" don't really know what they're talking about.
Uh, wow. How about not that. I'm more inclined to say that you are the one that doesn't know what you're talking about.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...0224032AAviKa4
I know we are a nation of amnesiacs.
But, if anyone has the time, they might revisit my post on this :
09-16-2008, 12:42 PM\t #121
gooddog
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 73
I think this is why gloss is being forced on us ... And more is to be forced on us...
Remember this story ?
"Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Apple's patent for an LCD display that also takes photos, video
By Appleinsider Staff
Published: 12:00 PM EST"
Well, if you look in through a matte glass plate that is placed right
up to an art print or an LCD, it works beautifully.
BUT, if you try to look OUT through the same glass plate, toward the room contents, IT IS TOTALLY USELESS -- BLURRED.
So, IMHO, Apple is getting us used to gloss (trying to) so that it can implement this technology.
WHAT ELSE IS BEING FORCED ?
Here is what : we have gone from the clip-on iSight with its featured privacy iris that twists shut for POSITIVE indication of
visual privacy >>> to the built-in, tiny camera that forces us to rely on electronic switch-off (like the mute button on cell phones that nobody trusts) BUT could still be shuttered with tape, etc. >>> to the future where THE SCREEN ITSELF contains an optical phased array (the algorithms must already abound by way of radio astronomy and such ) AND YOU CAN NOT DISABLE IT WITHOUT LOSING USE OF THE SCREEN ITSELF --- cover the screen ? Duh.
It is now known that cell phones can be infected, by governments, with malware that enable the snoopers to turn on the mic with no hint to the user that they are bugged.
It is obvious that the iPhone can not have it's battery removed , on the fly, as many security-minded officials do ; Chenney comes to mind .
It is of little comfort that Google uses "only statistical data" when it listens in on us for sounds of crying babies, barking dogs, motorcycles reving, etc. to pipe ads for pampers, dog chow, and
engine additives. THE POINT IS the barn door IS open and our privacy is gone.
So, why not go VISUAL with this trend ?
Why not a real "1984 " VISI-SCREEN that cannot be turned off, with certainty ?
I hope we don't get the usual dismissive, idiot responses that abound on the "internets" or the spineless "if-you-have-nothing-to-hide-why-worry-about-it" crap from the
conformist corner.
It would be nice if we got a serious response to this.
---gooddog
---gooddog
/
: * ] AAAAaaaRRRrrrFFFFff !!!
\\
I thought I was the only one who did that. A very neat, small, circular cover.
Yup, a camera you can't even see isn't such a good idea, especially on a computer that's looking at you or your home all day.
You'll notice that a little green light comes on when the camera is activated. This is an LED that lights automatically when current is passed to the camera, so it is impossible for the camera to activate without this light coming on (unless the LED burns out).
Hope this helps you guys sleep better at night.
I hope we don't get the usual dismissive, idiot responses that abound on the "internets" or the spineless "if-you-have-nothing-to-hide-why-worry-about-it" crap from the
conformist corner.
\\
Or any of those stupid conspiracy theorists who can spin the big brother thing in every topic you discuss. I hear ya man.
Nobody will probably believe me, but I sent Apple an email in 2003 suggesting to them they embed camera detectors between the pixels of their screens. To this day I wonder if they took my idea and patented it. I am the idiot for not doing that myself in the first place.
Believe it or not, I also thought of that technology! But I'm not a computer engineer, so no way of making it. I've thought of like making use of the "TWO WAY MIRROR" kinda thing. Haha...