not sure about OLED having accurate colors but if u say that was improved ok then
I don't think there is any inherent reason OLED can't be accurate but it could be too costly and/or have adverse power consumption issues compared to LCD. But we're talking about a watch face here so I'd say being excessively accurate like an iPhone display is neither a medium or high priority for such a device. If it's possible without much effort or cost then do it but if not it's not an issue.
I don't think there is any inherent reason OLED can't be accurate but it could be too costly and/or have adverse power consumption issues compared to LCD. But we're talking about a watch face here so I'd say being excessively accurate like an iPhone display is neither a medium or high priority for such a device. If it's possible without much effort or cost then do it but if not it's not an issue.
...that's over your self-imposed post limit. Sorry, but you're cut-off.
That should be enough on the "moving parts" comment.
DLP is mostly used in projectors and TV sets, not small screens. Currently no company plans on using that technology in phones or tablets, Well, apart from the small and/or built-in projectors. DLP has been around for quite some time, what makes anyone think Apple engineers are not aware of it?
Other than that, I am always bewildered by forum posters who think they are more competent than engineers and researchers working on and developing those technologies.
Other than that, I am always bewildered by forum posters who think they are more competent than engineers and researchers working on and developing those technologies.
So what are you trying to do? Kill 90% of the Internet? I fully agree though, see my sig :smokey:
That should be enough on the "moving parts" comment.
DLP is mostly used in projectors and TV sets, not small screens. Currently no company plans on using that technology in phones or tablets, Well, apart from the small and/or built-in projectors. DLP has been around for quite some time, what makes anyone think Apple engineers are not aware of it?
I think the point is that DLP is indeed mechanical, which is why I asked for clarification since your terse and rather derogatory reply seemed to imply that it wasn't. No one was arguing about the use of DLP in a mobile device or that Apple isn't aware of it, it was just an example of a system with "moving parts" that works quite well and is very reliable despite that fact.
And while we're splitting hairs, what's wrong with the suggestion that MEMS is based on mechanical components too? It is technically true after all, even if mechanical components on the nano scale behave quite differently than they do on the macro scale. So a better response to the OP would have been:
"Don't worry about nano scale moving parts, they're much more reliable than big moving parts. The iPhone's existing sensors (accelerometer, gyroscope) are MEMS-based after all."
Other than that, I am always bewildered by forum posters who think they are more competent than engineers and researchers working on and developing those technologies.
And while I agree with this statement, I don't think it was really the case here.
Well it isn't even about cost, color accuracy, wider gamuts, wider view range etc. In every one of these category there is / are already better alternative out there.
I think the point is that DLP is indeed mechanical, which is why I asked for clarification since your terse and rather derogatory reply seemed to imply that it wasn't. No one was arguing about the use of DLP in a mobile device or that Apple isn't aware of it, it was just an example of a system with "moving parts" that works quite well and is very reliable despite that fact.
And while we're splitting hairs, what's wrong with the suggestion that MEMS is based on mechanical components too? It is technically true after all, even if mechanical components on the nano scale behave quite differently than they do on the macro scale. So a better response to the OP would have been:
"Don't worry about nano scale moving parts, they're much more reliable than big moving parts. The iPhone's existing sensors (accelerometer, gyroscope) are MEMS-based after all."
And while I agree with this statement, I don't think it was really the case here.
I agree that it is better to give an informed and educated answers. Trolling, however, is not about knowledge. Bashing 3-word sentences and one-liners are usually exactly that. And I don't like feeding trolls.
Short answers are rarely exhaustive, and so they can be challenged. That would be a win for trolls. So, I prefer not giving information but redirecting to comprehensive sources. If the troll wants to continue, they have to spend quite some time reading, and that is a win against them by itself. If they are not trolls and are really willing to learn something new, educated articles are way better than short posts, again a win.
So, as I see it, my mistake was not providing reading materials in my first response. For that I apologize.
So, as I see it, my mistake was not providing reading materials in my first response. For that I apologize.
Why don't you just admit you overreacted and move on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper
This has zero meaning beyond pretence of knowledge.
You must have accidentally replied to the wrong post. It is THIS that has zero meaning beyond pretense of knowledge:
Quote:
Originally Posted by capasicum
Maybe you both need to read a bit more about quantum mechanics and quantum effects before writing nonsense.
What I said absolutely does have meaning in layman's terms. You don't NEED a degree in Quantum Mechanics to have a very basic understanding of how your TV works.
Your mistake was to comment on as if you know better. You clearly don't.
Well, I know infinitely better than you do as you have zero knowledge on the topic, that much is obvious.
And even if I didn't know shit, quite a few engineers and academic scholars doing research in those technologies know far more than any idiot bashing patent applications.
Now you can go move some micro-scale mechanical "parts" around, see if they stick you your grandeur understanding of the universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper
He can't, beyond quoting passages from the web that he can barely understand.
How stupid should one be to mistake a reference for a quotation? You seem to barely understand english let alone content.
Why don't you just admit you overreacted and move on?
Yes, I did. I thought they were trolling and I overreacted.
//P.S. "Part" is not a word I would use to describe components of a micro/nano-scale system (mechanism?). But, that's just me. And StruckPaper clearly stated that my brain is a tabula rasa, except I seem to be incapable of gaining knowledge. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I only skimmed this article but it seems to me this essentially describing a digital way to recreate an interference pattern. This is one step closer to a holographic display. MIT has a similar patent on this kind of technology too, but they didn't use digital MEMS. Instead they use SAM (surface acoustic modulation) to recreate the interference pattern for reflected light. Cool stuff.
Comments
This also sounds like it could produce some eye-popping razor-thin 4K monitors or TVs.
I don't think there is any inherent reason OLED can't be accurate but it could be too costly and/or have adverse power consumption issues compared to LCD. But we're talking about a watch face here so I'd say being excessively accurate like an iPhone display is neither a medium or high priority for such a device. If it's possible without much effort or cost then do it but if not it's not an issue.
...that's over your self-imposed post limit. Sorry, but you're cut-off.
Maybe you both need to read a bit more about quantum mechanics and quantum effects before writing nonsense.
Well if it isn't Dr. Sheldon Cooper. Care to elaborate?
This could mean the display in the 7th generation iPad that will be released in 2015 will have:
- Sapphire glass for the top layer
- quantum dot layer
- MEMS shutter layer
- bottom glass
- backlight
This sounds really futuristic.
Well if it isn't Dr. Sheldon Cooper. Care to elaborate?
Why yes I would. Not!
Here is a nice article to get some basic understanding on the topic of MEMS and nanotechnologies, including the link between those:
https://www.mems-exchange.org/MEMS/what-is.html
That should be enough on the "moving parts" comment.
DLP is mostly used in projectors and TV sets, not small screens. Currently no company plans on using that technology in phones or tablets, Well, apart from the small and/or built-in projectors. DLP has been around for quite some time, what makes anyone think Apple engineers are not aware of it?
Other than that, I am always bewildered by forum posters who think they are more competent than engineers and researchers working on and developing those technologies.
So what are you trying to do? Kill 90% of the Internet? I fully agree though, see my sig
Killing is illegal, isn't it?
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Why yes I would. Not!
Here is a nice article to get some basic understanding on the topic of MEMS and nanotechnologies, including the link between those:
https://www.mems-exchange.org/MEMS/what-is.html
That should be enough on the "moving parts" comment.
DLP is mostly used in projectors and TV sets, not small screens. Currently no company plans on using that technology in phones or tablets, Well, apart from the small and/or built-in projectors. DLP has been around for quite some time, what makes anyone think Apple engineers are not aware of it?
I think the point is that DLP is indeed mechanical, which is why I asked for clarification since your terse and rather derogatory reply seemed to imply that it wasn't. No one was arguing about the use of DLP in a mobile device or that Apple isn't aware of it, it was just an example of a system with "moving parts" that works quite well and is very reliable despite that fact.
And while we're splitting hairs, what's wrong with the suggestion that MEMS is based on mechanical components too? It is technically true after all, even if mechanical components on the nano scale behave quite differently than they do on the macro scale. So a better response to the OP would have been:
"Don't worry about nano scale moving parts, they're much more reliable than big moving parts. The iPhone's existing sensors (accelerometer, gyroscope) are MEMS-based after all."
Other than that, I am always bewildered by forum posters who think they are more competent than engineers and researchers working on and developing those technologies.
And while I agree with this statement, I don't think it was really the case here.
In every one of these category there is / are already better alternative out there.
The problem is energy usage.
I think the point is that DLP is indeed mechanical, which is why I asked for clarification since your terse and rather derogatory reply seemed to imply that it wasn't. No one was arguing about the use of DLP in a mobile device or that Apple isn't aware of it, it was just an example of a system with "moving parts" that works quite well and is very reliable despite that fact.
And while we're splitting hairs, what's wrong with the suggestion that MEMS is based on mechanical components too? It is technically true after all, even if mechanical components on the nano scale behave quite differently than they do on the macro scale. So a better response to the OP would have been:
"Don't worry about nano scale moving parts, they're much more reliable than big moving parts. The iPhone's existing sensors (accelerometer, gyroscope) are MEMS-based after all."
And while I agree with this statement, I don't think it was really the case here.
I agree that it is better to give an informed and educated answers. Trolling, however, is not about knowledge. Bashing 3-word sentences and one-liners are usually exactly that. And I don't like feeding trolls.
Short answers are rarely exhaustive, and so they can be challenged. That would be a win for trolls. So, I prefer not giving information but redirecting to comprehensive sources. If the troll wants to continue, they have to spend quite some time reading, and that is a win against them by itself. If they are not trolls and are really willing to learn something new, educated articles are way better than short posts, again a win.
So, as I see it, my mistake was not providing reading materials in my first response. For that I apologize.
"Don't worry about nano scale moving parts, they're much more reliable than big moving parts.
This has zero meaning beyond pretence of knowledge.
So, as I see it, my mistake was not providing reading materials in my first response. For that I apologize.
Your mistake was to comment on as if you know better. You clearly don't.
Well if it isn't Dr. Sheldon Cooper. Care to elaborate?
He can't, beyond quoting passages from the web that he can barely understand.
So, as I see it, my mistake was not providing reading materials in my first response. For that I apologize.
Why don't you just admit you overreacted and move on?
Quote:
This has zero meaning beyond pretence of knowledge.
You must have accidentally replied to the wrong post. It is THIS that has zero meaning beyond pretense of knowledge:
Maybe you both need to read a bit more about quantum mechanics and quantum effects before writing nonsense.
What I said absolutely does have meaning in layman's terms. You don't NEED a degree in Quantum Mechanics to have a very basic understanding of how your TV works.
Your mistake was to comment on as if you know better. You clearly don't.
Well, I know infinitely better than you do as you have zero knowledge on the topic, that much is obvious.
And even if I didn't know shit, quite a few engineers and academic scholars doing research in those technologies know far more than any idiot bashing patent applications.
Now you can go move some micro-scale mechanical "parts" around, see if they stick you your grandeur understanding of the universe.
He can't, beyond quoting passages from the web that he can barely understand.
How stupid should one be to mistake a reference for a quotation? You seem to barely understand english let alone content.
Originally Posted by kForceZero
Why don't you just admit you overreacted and move on?
Yes, I did. I thought they were trolling and I overreacted.
//P.S. "Part" is not a word I would use to describe components of a micro/nano-scale system (mechanism?). But, that's just me. And StruckPaper clearly stated that my brain is a tabula rasa, except I seem to be incapable of gaining knowledge.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Maybe you both need to read a bit more about quantum mechanics and quantum effects before writing nonsense.
Oooooohhhhh.....
LOL
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />