[HN Gopher] Here come the bendable TVs and monitors that no one ...
___________________________________________________________________
Here come the bendable TVs and monitors that no one asked for
Author : rbanffy
Score : 135 points
Date : 2022-09-06 10:56 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| XorNot wrote:
| The problem with this whole concept is I just plain don't trust
| the robustness.
|
| I remember the demo version of a Samsung foldable phone with a
| row of dead pixels right where you'd expect on the crease line.
| ssizn wrote:
| jesuscript wrote:
| At point is the image distorted when you bend it? I always had an
| issue with that with curved monitors. Is there such a thing as
| bending calibration? Am I looking at an accurate image if I bend
| it?
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think they are mostly used for things like games, where this
| is less of a big deal.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Because the screen is flat while the celestial sphere is round,
| you are _only_ looking at an accurate image if you bend it. :-)
| From the perspective of your eye or a pinhole camera, the sides
| of your screen look shorter than the center because they are
| farther away, which does not happen if it is bent.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Only if you're way too close.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Usually, curved monitors are very long.
| boltzmann-brain wrote:
| for 3d images, this highly depends on how the 3d engine
| renders things - curved monitors can be less accurate than
| flat displays due to simply using the wrong 3d projection.
| whatshisface wrote:
| That is a good point, I was only thinking about images
| taken with a camera.
| crazygringo wrote:
| I'm curious if there are any videogames that render specifically
| for curved monitors? (And then if the level of curve is
| adjustable, like it's adjustable for these?)
|
| Because projecting an image onto a plane vs. onto a cylinder
| becomes radically different the further you get from the center
| of your field of view -- flat photo mode vs panorama mode.
|
| I'm vaguely aware that the commonly wider aspect ratio of curved
| monitors often isn't supported by games, because in multiplayer
| mode the greater field of view gives an unfair advantage... but
| maybe there's some subset of games that design for this?
| caylus wrote:
| I'm not sure how the math works for 3D games, but I would think
| that for 2D games, a curved monitor actually _reduces_
| distortion.
|
| In a flat monitor centered in front of your head, the distance
| between your eyes and different pixels on the screen varies
| depending on how close they are to the edge, thus distorting
| the sizes of the rendered sprites. Curving the edges reduces
| this effect (depending of course on the exact curvature and
| distance to the monitor).
|
| I guess the key question for 3D is whether the rendering engine
| already attempts to compensate for this effect. It seems
| difficult for it to do so, since monitor sizes and distances
| vary so much, but I suppose that's what settings like field-of-
| view are for.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Many modern video slots have dramatically curved vertical
| screens. That form factor would be great for a workstation.
| coffee_beqn wrote:
| I believe some driving sims support extra wide field of view so
| that you see the sides of the car interior. I've seen that with
| a multi monitor "curved" set up but I'm not sure if a true
| curved monitor is curved enough for that illusion. Mine is
| pretty subtle, maybe 15-20 degrees total
| boltzmann-brain wrote:
| it's not just the aspect ratio - the perspective is different
| on curved monitors, because the surface is pointing in a
| different direction at every point. you have to simulate this
| with an effect related to the fish-eye lens.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| That's been my experience for the few games I've played
| with that had field of view settings with some semblance
| for curved monitors: things towards the far edges balloon
| larger like with a fish-eye lens, which turns out about
| what you need to best activate peripheral vision too.
| gigaflop wrote:
| When I game on my 3440x1440 curved monitor, I usually
| nudge my FOV 10 to 20 degrees higher. This gives me a
| very generous 'flat' zone in the middle for when (and
| where) I need precision, and the edges of the screen have
| a small bit of 'zoom' to help watch my corners.
|
| Sometimes I try to game that a bit when looking at
| something distant: I'll wiggle the object's position
| between the edge and center of the camera, to get
| slightly different perspectives on it.
| TrevorJ wrote:
| the 3D to 2D projections happening in realtime engines don't
| 'curve' anything the way a real lens does. A fisheye lens in
| real life will turn some straight lines into curves, you'd
| never see that in a video game (unless it's a post processing
| effect that fakes it). So I suspect that there aren't really
| any games that have the ability to do a 1:1 projection that
| perfectly matches the curve of a monitor, although there are
| probably some fast approximations.
| spicybright wrote:
| I normally shy away from jokes on this website, but I can't not
| compare this to Micheal Scott's plasma TV bit.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHP2Ep73Fk4
| knorker wrote:
| When I bought my TV it was a curved smart TV. I wanted neither
| curved nor smart, but it was forced upon me by the requirements
| OLED and 4K.
|
| It also has support for 3D. Don't care about that either.
| jdboyd wrote:
| It is increasing hard to get away from smart, but since OLED
| and 4k launched together, I think there have always been flat
| options available.
|
| You used to be able to get away from the smart "features" by
| going with a commercial display, but that is increasingly less
| true. Hopefully the smarts on smart commercial displays don't
| involve spying on you are showing ads though.
| eschneider wrote:
| I'd actually pay good money for this. As my vision gets worse and
| worse, I've had to go to smaller monitors so that I could see the
| whole thing in focus at once. If I could get a large, curved
| monitor that I could adjust so every portion was an equal
| distance from my eyes, that'd be a big win.
| smm11 wrote:
| Polymer thick film FLEXIBLE circuits.
| throwaway1777 wrote:
| The more likely direction is in the future AR/VR will be good
| enough no one will need physical screens.
| Havoc wrote:
| Pointless indeed
|
| The only scenario I can think of where I'd probably like flat
| more is a screen in portrait orientation
| orangepurple wrote:
| Can't wait to roll up my TV
| [deleted]
| erik_landerholm wrote:
| I bought the 65 inch version of this TV a few years ago.
| https://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-OLED77W9PUA-signature-oled-4k-t...
|
| They aren't making them anymore, manufacturing issues and issues
| with the proprietary cable, but I must admit it's like a magic
| portal and I love it for no other reason than it's flatter than a
| #2 pencil. Lol Favorite thing I've ever bought.
|
| It's very bendy. You can roll it up loosely. I tried it once, but
| freaked me out too much.
| lobstrosity420 wrote:
| What I'm really waiting for is foldable monitors that stow
| easily, something like the Zenbook 17 Fold, sans computer.
|
| The utility of a nonmobile monitor that bends slightly is pretty
| questionable in my opinion.
| rjbwork wrote:
| Agree. I'm about to be on the road for a bit over a month and
| am not looking forward to working just on a laptop screen.
| jotm wrote:
| I couldn't find any 17-21" portable monitors last time I wanted
| one. They seem like a no-brainer to me, but apparently there is
| no market for them? It's either 13 inch and overpriced or full
| fledged desktop monitor...
| bick_nyers wrote:
| A portable ultra wide that I can roll up and put in my carry-on
| sounds useful
| necovek wrote:
| If the price difference between making it bendable instead of
| always curved is neglible, you might as well cater to both flat-
| screen and curved-screen buyers with one product.
|
| If flat OLED screens are significantly cheaper, then bendable
| screens will evolve into always curved models down the line.
| boltzmann-brain wrote:
| the problem is that bendable OLEDs will ultimately never be
| quite the shape you want. especially if you want it flat -
| there will always be a small bit that bulges out, and it won't
| be a uniform curve, it'll actually be a crease or a localized
| bulge; and it'll be that tiny bit annoying to where people
| won't want to have them, especially with clear rather than
| matte displays, because of the inevitable annoying reflections
| which move as your head moves.
|
| bendability is clearly a great thing for advertisements, and I
| see a lot of those things showing up in buses and trains
| (curved banners at the top, like on the London tube),
| tradeshows (curved artsy-fartsy installations), car dashboards,
| etc. but before any of that can happen, oled longevity in
| presence of static images needs to be fixed... which might
| never happen.
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| I've been using OLED displays for years on my phone and TV
| and never run into any issues with burn-in (not made any
| effort to prevent it either).
| samatman wrote:
| All of what you're saying only applies to bending a screen in
| half, right?
|
| I'm not seeing why a monitor like we're discussing would
| automatically have bulges or creases.
| zepearl wrote:
| > _If the price difference between making it bendable instead
| of always curved is neglible, you might as well cater to both
| flat-screen and curved-screen buyers with one product._
|
| I agree.
|
| In my case I bought years ago a curved LG OLED display even if
| I was quite against it because it was 1000.- CHF cheaper than
| its identical but flat twin (2500.-) => I relocated last
| October and the only place I could put the TV in the new flat
| was in front of the fireplace, which is in the livingroom's
| corner cutting the 2 walls by 45 degrees => the curved TV fits
| better than a flat TV to show the image towards the viewer
| sitting on the couch in the square room.
|
| Therefore, if the price diff is not too high, then why not -
| maybe you won't need that feature or not immediately, but you
| never know; it does give you more "options" and I'm always in
| favour of that, as well when coding, managing a project, etc -
| having more options decreases risk, makes you more able to
| adapt, etc :)
| madaxe_again wrote:
| They will, ultimately, be significantly cheaper, for one reason
| - freight. TVs ship in big boxes, full of styrofoam - you're
| limited on how many you can fit in a standard container, and
| they're expensive and fragile to ship the last leg to the
| consumer. They take up warehouse space, and are often a two-man
| lift for larger models.
|
| Being able to ship a TV rolled up in a tube will be
| revolutionary.
|
| See also: mattresses.
| maxander wrote:
| Is this true? Flat rectangles pack more efficiently than
| tubes. With mattresses, afaik, the big difference was vacuum-
| packing reducing overall volume, not shape.
| algorias wrote:
| Seems true, because about 80% of the volume of a tv or
| monitor box is padding. Padding scales with surface area,
| not volume, so it could be reduced by a ton.
| brianwawok wrote:
| The total cost to ship a TV is like $20. Cost to add curves
| is like $500. Not even close to mattering.
| madaxe_again wrote:
| The total cost to ship it where? From Korea to the end user
| in the US? Or from New Jersey to New York? Much more of the
| cost of goods is transport than you might realise, and you
| pay per TEU, not per kg - so a container mostly filled with
| air is an expensive proposition.
|
| You also assume that the technical cost will be constant -
| it rarely is, and I see these products as a tooling step
| towards making thin film displays that can be packed with
| vastly improved density.
| tyrfing wrote:
| That's about right for a 40" TV for domestic ground
| shipping, maybe a bit low. It's more than that to ship it
| from China to California, and larger sizes will hit
| breakpoints that significantly increase shipping cost.
| kevincox wrote:
| Not only flat vs curved buyers but it can add flexibility in
| usage too. Maybe I want to put the monitor on a table and use
| it as a TV for a while (maybe a friend's kids are over and I
| want to put a TV in the corner). This way the same device can
| switch between a single-person curved display or a wider-
| viewing-angle flat display in seconds.
|
| Sure, it is a niche use case, but why not?
| WorldMaker wrote:
| Owning a curved ultrawide as my main PC monitor, I've
| definitely hit cases where it might be nice to briefly
| flatten it. I keep my main PC in my bedroom and don't have a
| TV in the bedroom. You can watch TV/videos that are centered
| in the display pretty well from the bed, but if you wanted to
| watch two things side by side or if there was a market for
| videos in "2K" ultrawide aspect ratios it would be tougher to
| watch things.
|
| I've often also thought about the durability of the monitor
| if I need to move it to another home. Right now the only
| packing material I think is safe to use due to the curve is
| the packing material it came in that was molded to its curve.
| Movers are used to flat screens these days, but I can't
| imagine they'd have an easy time with this curved ultrawide.
| gigaflop wrote:
| I'm in a similar spot as you. I've also taken to holding on
| to the original packaging of this thing as a bit of an
| albatross, but so long as there's the _slightest_ chance of
| needing to move this thing, I need the original styrofoam
| and cardboard. I 've already gotten use out of it a few
| times.
| durnygbur wrote:
| There was this time span few years ago when all TVs were "3D"...
| so much electronic waste was produced...
| pessimizer wrote:
| There was a time when the 3D TV people infested HN worse than
| the Bitcoin people later did. 100 times a day, somebody was
| called a cynic for saying that people weren't going to wear
| special glasses to watch TV. Since half the new high-end TVs
| were 3D, we also got to constantly hear that _the market_ had
| already chosen 3D.
|
| Smart TVs were the boon everyone was looking for; they could
| reorganize and raise the profit margins of the TV manufacturing
| industry but didn't even have to add any expensive new
| technology, just crappy apps and ads.
| rubicon33 wrote:
| Bendable? No thanks.
|
| Where is the kindle style monitor (no backlight)?
|
| Staring at an LED panel all day for decades isn't great. I'd love
| to see improvements to non-backlit monitor tech but it seems the
| demand for that is low, and somehow lower than the demand for a
| bendable monitor.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| Here is a video comparing two that are on the market.
|
| [1]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fycfiWPypkY
| ianai wrote:
| Maybe bendable screens are a valley we have to go through to
| get the transparent, nearly expendable phones from the Expanse?
| vvilliamperez wrote:
| From what I know, e-ink tech is and has been very feasible, but
| is on hold since it's under patent. The company that holds the
| patent is notoriously slow to reach any licensing deals in a
| timely fashion to bring a product to market. Not to mention
| their exorbitant licensing fees. The end product turns out to
| be to expensive to market.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_Ink
| NonNefarious wrote:
| I agree with you, but the refresh rate on E-paper is so
| hideous. And the panels are expensive as hell.
| dominotw wrote:
| Has e-ink been shown to be better for eyes. I was under the
| impression that most of the damage comes from focusing your
| eyes on screen all day ( vs backlight )
| rcarr wrote:
| The way forward isn't monitors and tvs at all, but 4k ultra
| short throw laser projectors like Samsung Premiere and Optoma
| P2. They're like something out of Star Wars, don't even need
| the curtains closed to use them. They're starting to come down
| in price as well to around the PS1500-PS2000 mark, won't be
| long before they break the PS1000 mark. Can't wait to get one
| of these for my home office in a few months.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| I've had projectors ever since I was 14 years old but there's
| no getting around the fact that the darkest their black level
| can get is however dark the screen is.
|
| Dark screens help but until we can project on something
| that's essentially black they won't be great for daytime
| viewing.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Looking at the marketing pages for the two projectors
| mentioned is hilarious. They show images projected onto
| brightly-lit white walls with areas that are significantly
| darker than the wall, which is of course impossible.
|
| Unless/until some material comes along that is tuned
| somehow to only reflect light that comes from the
| projector, they'll have to remain limited to dark rooms.
| rcarr wrote:
| Have a look at this, looks pretty visible to me:
|
| https://youtu.be/nu2OZq8A-AI
| jaywalk wrote:
| I wasn't talking about visibility. I was referring to the
| marketing pictures showing the projectors essentially
| "projecting darkness" which is impossible. No part of a
| projected image can possibly be darker than the surface
| it's being projected onto.
| pwinnski wrote:
| That video demonstrates the problem exactly. The "before"
| shot shows a clip from _Lightyear_ which takes place in
| the black of space, and the screen is filled with high-
| contrast bright colors on a completely-black background.
| The "after" shot is of a bright sunny day where a car
| (low contrast despite the bright red color, to my eyes)
| drives through a desert. You could hardly ask for more
| directly opposite videos. For a real comparison, I'd have
| liked to see the same _Lightyear_ clip on both setups.
| unstatusthequo wrote:
| Ready for a rabbit hole: https://projectorscreen.com
| jaywalk wrote:
| I guess the tech is further along than I thought!
| jnsie wrote:
| How long before we can replace monitors with virtual monitors
| via AR? I feel like we take for granted that we have TVs
| taking up huge chunks of our living rooms and monitors of our
| offices. Obviously resolution is a (huge) issue. Another, for
| TV at least, is the communal aspect (synchronized virtual
| TVs, anyone?) but it seems like the future is on without
| physical monitors/TVs. I wonder how distant a future that
| is...
| autoexec wrote:
| > How long before we can replace monitors with virtual
| monitors via AR?
|
| Hopefully never. People who don't wear glasses don't need
| something on their face to watch TV, people who do need
| glasses don't need to worry about AR googles meaning they
| have to choose between seeing a screen clearly or
| everything else and nobody has to worry about the AR goggle
| company watching and logging everything you see and
| plastering everything in your line of sight with ads.
|
| I don't think physical screens are going anywhere anytime
| soon. I wouldn't mind having every wall in my home capable
| of being a screen though. Screen-as-wallpaper would be very
| nice since you could create smaller virtual screens on any
| wall wherever you needed one and it would mean you could
| change your wallpaper/color on a whim.
| rcarr wrote:
| There's the nreal air glasses that you can buy today for
| PS400 and some Lenovo glasses that were posted on hn
| recently that are coming next year. The future is already
| here:
|
| https://youtu.be/bj8hMtWeTUg
| xxs wrote:
| You will have to paint your walls in (vanta) black.
| detritus wrote:
| I know you're joking, but that would just result in a
| pretty-much black screen, no matter how much white was
| thrown at it :)
| madetoshareqs wrote:
| On the other hand, the contrast ratio would be really
| good. :)
| jstanley wrote:
| How would it?
| hnuser123456 wrote:
| One photon in bright areas is infinite contrast ratio to
| zero photons in black areas
| unstatusthequo wrote:
| Yes these are great. I have one from VAVA, and got a special
| screen to display it on that also helps prevent other light
| from affecting the lasers from the UST lens. It's great for
| TV. Sure, black levels aren't perfect, but I'll give that up
| for a 10 foot screen. Not sure I'd use it for my office. I
| feel like an array of monitors or a really nice 8k would be
| better.
| NonNefarious wrote:
| My "TV" is a projector, but I don't consider it practical for
| computer work.
|
| When 100" micro-LED panels come out, the projector is going
| away for good.
| smileysteve wrote:
| Or the opposite, when glasses can have built in 1440p
| "augmented reality" oleds, each viewer can have as big of a
| display, with black pixels, as they want.
| NonNefarious wrote:
| If that's your idea of a fun viewing party, go for it.
| I'll stick with the big-screen experience.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| My VR headset is 1400p per eye and GARBAGE for looking at
| text on a virtual screen. Any display tech that expects
| you to focus at a virtual plane for long periods of time
| will really hurt your eyes, and be basically unusable for
| many people. If you struggle in nice 3D movies to feel
| like your eyes are comfortable, you will have that same
| feeling in a VR or AR glasses situation.
|
| Basically, any system that requires your eyes to focus on
| a physical screen that isn't the same distance as virtual
| objects will piss off your brain, because it knows
| something is going on, and hates being tricked without
| consent. Some people I think can ignore this effect to
| some extent, others cannot. It also strains your eyes
| more than focusing on an actual 2D screen so increases
| eye fatigue compared.
| egypturnash wrote:
| Have you seen these in action? I am skeptical of all "don't
| need curtains" claims for projectors unless they are based on
| actual experience, every shitty $100 pocket projector says
| you "don't need curtains" which is barely even technically
| true in most cases.
| rcarr wrote:
| I was sceptical at first but then I saw some photos and
| YouTube videos of people using them. Have a look at this,
| it's not an ultra short throw one but it is a 4k laser one.
| The guy is using it outside in broad daylight to watch
| Netflix: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nebula-Polaris-Pro-
| Projector-Black-...
| mburee wrote:
| It claims 2400 lumens - I have a couple of flashlights in
| excess of 6000 and yeah, the light beam is visible in
| daylight but I can't see any way you'd project something
| with decent contrast even with that.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| You mean the promotional videos?
|
| You don't get to make black over a white surface in
| daylight.
| rcarr wrote:
| No I mean the user posted video and photo reviews on
| Amazon and also the odd YouTuber.
|
| And yes, it is not going to be as good as a TV outside in
| broad daylight. But they are almost definitely good
| enough to use inside with the curtains open. And if the
| light isn't directly in your eyes like a monitor, do you
| even have to code in dark mode anymore?
| tolmasky wrote:
| That says it has a brightness of 2400 ISO Lumens, which
| roughly translates to about 600 nits according to this
| site[1], (although my back of the napkin math of 3.426
| nits to lumens would give a worse 408 nit rating, but I
| think this page probably did a better job, so we'll go
| with that). This seems pretty low compared to even OLED
| TVs, which are of course worse than LCD TVs. I may be
| comparing peak brightness to average brightness though,
| hard to get a clear idea here. But, if my understanding
| is correct, with a project you'll _also_ miss out on true
| blacks, right?
|
| 1. https://cybershack.com.au/cybershack/nebula-cosmos-
| laser-4k-...
| user3939382 wrote:
| I resisted ebook readers since the day they came out, out of an
| irrational sense of betraying "real" books which I love. I
| recently got one (Kobo Libra 2) and mannn these eink displays
| are SO nice to look at compared to my LED display. Literally
| night and day.
| boltzmann-brain wrote:
| as someone who's spent ages reading books before ebooks were
| a thing and before LCD technology became popular, I'm quite
| the opposite - I can't be happy enough about LCD technolgy
| being around, especially if compared to an old yellowed book
| that's been printed off the same plates for 20 years and
| which you're reading in an only moderately well lit room.
| although LED technology again helps here because all that
| books-before-LCD experience comes from the days of
| incandescent light bulbs and nascent "energy saving"
| fluorescent compacts with edison screw.
| marssaxman wrote:
| I had a similar experience. I love real books and hate
| locked-down corporate ecosystems. But... at my sweetie's
| suggestion, I bought a Kobo Libra for a trip where I had no
| space for books, and I have to admit that it is _nice_. It
| weighs nothing, pages turn effortlessly, it remembers my
| place, the battery lasts forever, and the screen is really
| sharp. You can resize the text, and the device just magically
| reworks the layout, as if it came from the press that way.
| Beyond that, it syncs with my library account - I don 't even
| use the Kobo store!
|
| I've actually been using it to read with my ten-year-old. We
| take turns, alternating chapters. "Snuggling up on the couch
| with a child and an e-reader" does not have the same romantic
| ring, but the stories are just as engaging and I think the
| e-reader with its push-button page-flip is actually better
| for smaller, less-dextrous hands.
| pjerem wrote:
| > the battery lasts forever
|
| That is true. I recharge my E-ink reader multiple times ...
| per year.
| chrisweekly wrote:
| Yeah. I've been an avid / voracious reader for over 40 years,
| and will always love "real" books, but I've developed a
| strong preference for reading on my Kindle Oasis, for several
| reasons: - portability - dictionary &
| wikipedia lookup - highlights -> readwise* -
| continuity (phone, kindle, audiobook via WhisperSync), I can
| listen while driving, continue reading when home -
| preview the next book in a series and/or buy it on the spot
| and keep reading
|
| * Readwise in turn syncs to my Obsidian vault where I can do
| useful things with them like progressive summarization...
|
| In contrast, paper books are heavy and fragile, and I've
| always resisted annotating / highlighting physicap books bc
| its permament and feels like defacement / vandalism.
|
| TLDR, I love my personal library, my house is full of
| bookshelves, but my reading preferences have evolved, and I
| get absurdly high value from my Oasis.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| I think the reading UI _per se_ of paper books is still
| better overall, but god damn, the space-savings advantage
| of ereaders is hard to ignore.
| NeuNeurosis wrote:
| Thanks for sharing. Do you have one of those that you shared?
| If you do what is your experience like?
| tsol wrote:
| You know I've never considered this, but that's probably one of
| the only pain points with monitors now. If they can find some
| way to not make it feel like I'm been staring at light bulb
| during the night time I would really be interested in paying
| premium prices. Screens definitely mess with my circadian
| rhythm. Otherwise at this point all I'm interested in is a
| basic monitor
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Just adding a reasonable control on the brightness is already
| enough to solve this. Make the monitor's bottom some not too
| bright white, and it's solved for outside usage too.
|
| Liquid crystal displays can actually adapt to almost any
| circumstance. It's the manufacturer's fault that they force
| it into "store-bright" and won't let you change.
| NonNefarious wrote:
| The long-overdue move away from inverse color schemes (dark
| text on a white background) has certainly helped.
| whatshisface wrote:
| If you combine an accurate ambient light sensor with a
| regular old LCD you can do that pretty well, because you
| don't need to vary the brightness across the screen to
| simulate diffuse reflections from an uneven light source to
| get the effect you want. Also check out those programs that
| redshift your monitor. Finally, try turning down your
| monitor's brightness.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| It's not a cure-all, but third-party tools like f.lux can
| change the colors of the monitor at early morning/late night
| to drastically reduce the problem.
|
| I used to have incredibly sore eyes from late-night sessions,
| and now that problem is completely gone. Been using it for
| years and will never go back.
|
| It does take a little while to get used to at first, but it
| quickly becomes natural.
|
| Windows also has a built-in tool to do the same thing, but
| it's not as robust/customizable iirc.
| nix0n wrote:
| Blue-light blocking glasses have helped me with this.
| stetrain wrote:
| https://www.sunvisiondisplay.com/reflective-lcd-monitor
| Kerrick wrote:
| Right here!
| https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1683182-REG/boox_opc0...
|
| $1800 for a 25" monochrome E-ink monitor. The resolution is
| 3200 x 1800, but remember to consider that resolution in the
| context of E-ink rather than LCD.
| yusefnapora wrote:
| I'm hoping that we see more reflective LCD displays in the
| future. There's a 32 inch 1080p panel by Sun Vision that seems
| pretty remarkable, but I'm holding out hope for more pixel
| density, etc.
|
| If you haven't seen it, there's a very well done review at
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQms-iHX9RQ
| rbanffy wrote:
| It it could bend backwards, I kind of miss my Trinitron CRTs...
| Theodores wrote:
| That is easy, even with the two horizontal mask lines.
|
| I want a non-Trinitron AMOLED faux CRT with a good centimetre
| of glass at the front and a simulated hi pitch whine, with
| heating element on the top for the comfort requirements of a
| cat.
|
| The two way curve, now that would be a real challenge. Market
| sales for said TV? A few movies where they need to portray the
| 21st century, that is about it.
| sbf501 wrote:
| NEC 6FG MultiSync FTW.
| HereIGoAgain wrote:
| Perfect title.
| wildrhythms wrote:
| Refreshing to see "tech press" not mindlessly gawking at some
| hyped up new tech for a change.
| HereIGoAgain wrote:
| Agreed!
| throwawaymanbot wrote:
| sleepybrett wrote:
| Until I can roll or fold it up to a size no bigger than a 13"
| laptop and cart it away in my backpack I could care less.
| RobRivera wrote:
| couldn't care less is the phrasing that invokes an expression
| of maximum indifference
| throwthere wrote:
| > couldn't care less is the phrasing that invokes an
| expression of maximum indifference
|
| Merriam-Webster asserts both phrasings are equivalent since
| at least the 1800s.
|
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/could-
| couldnt-...
| persedes wrote:
| If this inspire more affordable products like this[0] that would
| let me store the TV away easily, I'd be very interested.
|
| 0 - https://www.lg.com/global/lg-signature/rollable-oled-tv-r
| squarefoot wrote:
| Interesting, although before buying it would be advisable to
| check how many rolls/unrolls it is guaranteed for.
| duskwuff wrote:
| Not shown on that page: the price tag. MSRP is $100,000.
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| This would solve a lot of issues with interior design
| aesthetics. A lot of rooms just don't have a good spot for a
| TV. They end up above a fire place, or in front of a window. or
| in an awkward viewing spot. They make lift systems that put the
| TV down into a cabinet but you still have the full size TV to
| store away.
| ngold wrote:
| Eventually it will just be wallpaper.
| wffurr wrote:
| Doesn't seem like it addresses the problem of awkward wall
| spaces at all, vs a stow-away screen of some type.
| royletron wrote:
| this was my first thought. Bendable technology doesn't just
| mean curved viewing, it has some really cool pratical uses like
| this roll-y up thing. You could also imagine one from the
| ceiling like a garage door. No more wall mounted TVs plz
| [deleted]
| jayknight wrote:
| Like a retractable screen+projector, but no need for a
| projector. Sound nice.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I was really surprised that all the cellphone manufacturers
| went with flip phones, rather than roll-out phones like a
| miniaturized version of this.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| I'd honestly love a slap bracelet phone that I could wear on
| my wrist.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| This seems doable but you're going to lose like half of the
| viewable screen area just to view angle geometry.
|
| Apple watch seems to be the best solution here most likely
| matt_attack wrote:
| Rolling your wrist to scroll and just accepting the poor
| visibility on part on the screen could still be pretty
| good.
| danielvaughn wrote:
| Right but that's assuming you'd be consuming content
| while the device is rolled up. I like the idea simply for
| portability - I don't have a large phone primarily
| because it's awkward to stick it in my pockets.
| wyre wrote:
| Not the same thing but the Apple Watch has an LTE model
| that can allow you to leave our phone at home.
| macrolime wrote:
| I think they're still struggling with durability. I think
| it's likely we'll see rollable phone screens of sorts within
| a few years though. A rollable screen could just be an
| extension screen that could be pulled out when needing more
| screenspace
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| That's basically an extension of how current bendable
| screens work, right? Just with the whole thing bending
| instead of just the middle.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| Less bending overall results in less failures?
|
| Also it would be hard to talk on a floppy phone
| alias_neo wrote:
| Make it so it has no speaker or microphone, and then you
| don't have that problem and can sell more wireless earbuds.
|
| Tangentially, you also solve a security/privacy concern.
|
| Heck, make the band a wireless display and solar/kinetic
| charger and you can mind the guts to a wirelessly connected
| device that never leaves your pocket.
| autoexec wrote:
| > Tangentially, you also solve a security/privacy
| concern.
|
| You also introduce/force a security/privacy concern.
| Bluetooth can get your device remotely hacked and it's
| routinely used to track you, your location, and nearby
| devices. It's one reason I always use phones with
| headphone jacks, I never have a need to enable bluetooth.
| bee_rider wrote:
| There's "more bending" in some sense because the whole
| thing has to bend, but it avoids the seam problem.
| badtension wrote:
| I love the idea, you could put the TV in front of a large
| window and just roll it up in the evening without having
| daylight obstructed.
|
| Not to mention moving between apartments, it would be so much
| easier.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Someone tell Ars Technica no-one asked for TVs in the first
| place.
| ghastmaster wrote:
| This is close to my thoughts based on the title alone. It
| reminded me of Dvorak's " _There is no evidence that people
| want to use these things._ " line.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Of course they did.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Shh. We're supposed to pretend that no one wanted tvs, just
| like we pretend that what people wanted were faster horses,
| rather than to be relieved of the effort of caring for a
| horse. Get it? The users are dumb.
| spandrew wrote:
| The idea of someone's likeness being broadcast on some kind of
| screen has been in sci-fi for a long time. More like facetime -
| but still. The idea is not new. And people wanted it.
| archi42 wrote:
| I'm still looking forward to the UI revolution due to touch
| screens on computers becoming mainstream. Too bad the big
| PixelSense screens never took off in the mass market.
|
| But bendable screens... meh. I wanted a flat screen, only got a
| curved screen. And still never felt the urge to unbend it.
| NonNefarious wrote:
| That's not going to happen, because touchscreens on computers
| suck. Waving your arms around in front of you all day is a
| shitty way to work, and takes up way more space than a
| mousepad.
|
| Not to mention: Why would you want your hands and arms blocking
| your view of the stuff you're trying to manipulate on-screen?
|
| Entire companies have already come and gone because the
| "Minority Report" UI has no legitimate use case.
| archi42 wrote:
| I think that's a misconception. For context: I have a strong
| preference for keyboard use, mouse is only an optional
| accessory that's sometimes useful.
|
| I already use touch on my XPS 13 and it's just another nice
| accessory, which I often prefer over a mouse (especially for
| mobile use). If I move from keyboard to mouse to click a
| button, I can also just touch it. Or lazily scroll a page.
| But it's a mistake to assume it should replace all other
| input methods instead of augmenting them; forcing that on a
| user sucks, yes.
|
| Edit: Oh, and I just played "Root" on a 43" touch screen
| sitting on a table. Works well, except that I need to
| integrate it into the table.
| Teever wrote:
| and yet millions of people place their orderd at McDonalds or
| self-check out their groceries with this every day.
| NonNefarious wrote:
| What fantasyland do you live in?
| Nextgrid wrote:
| If your work's complexity is equivalent to placing a fast-
| food order, it might be appropriate, but even then, you
| will likely get tired if you had to do this all day.
| rcarr wrote:
| > Entire companies have already come and gone because the
| "Minority Report" UI has no legitimate use case.
|
| Guess you're talking about Leap Motion? I reckon they might
| have been 7 years too early to market. I could see this kind
| of thing picking up traction when AR/VR really becomes
| mainstream, maybe not as the main input source but I could
| see it for less commonly used actions.
| NonNefarious wrote:
| Yeah, I think that was it. I respect that they tried, but I
| can't even see these things being used for air traffic
| control. 3-D? For sure. But big transparent panels?
| schwartzworld wrote:
| You want to use your TV as a touch screen? We used to have
| physical buttons on the TV that we used to change channels and
| control volume. Getting up to interact with the TV was a giant
| pain in the ass.
| cesarb wrote:
| > We used to have physical buttons on the TV that we used to
| change channels and control volume.
|
| And I'm annoyed at the current trend of removing these
| buttons. It's not rare for the remote control batteries to be
| empty, or the remote control to be broken (with some buttons
| not responding to presses), or even the remote control to be
| lost somewhere in the house (to be found only days later).
| Having a fallback way to control the TV, at least
| power/channel/volume/input and preferentially also full
| access to the configuration menus (using the
| channel/volume/etc buttons as arrows and confirm/cancel), is
| essential. Ideally with capacitive buttons, which in my
| experience do not get broken as easily as normal physical
| buttons.
| boltzmann-brain wrote:
| ahahah i remember having 4 buttons on a drawer that pulled
| out to display 4 tiny plastic potentiometers that you had to
| turn if you wanted to check out any of the other channels
| once there were any - and yeah, you're right. god no
|
| but i guess it's nice for laptops and stuff
| archi42 wrote:
| I never said I wanted to do _that_ ;) I was just really into
| the NUI /TUI hype back in the early 2010s. (I still like
| proper buttons, especially in my car)
|
| I wouldn't hang a screen like that on a wall, but put it
| in/on a table.
|
| Just came back from playing the "Root" tutorial on a 43"
| touchscreen, btw. Quite nice, looking forward to see how it
| fares with when playing with friends or using it as a virtual
| tabletop for pen&paper RPGs. Still need to integrate it into
| a table, and I think it needs a tilt mechanic for better
| ergonomics when playing alone.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| > but put it in/on a table.
|
| Microsoft tried that. It didn't go _great_
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZrr7AZ9nCY
| archi42 wrote:
| Don't have sound right now, sorry. But that thing cost
| about 10kUS$ (and even more early on), that's nearly
| 14kUS$ inflation corrected. Might be the reason people
| didn't buy them for home use ;)
| account-5 wrote:
| Nope. They ruined TVs with rubbish "smart" functions. Now they
| seem to be coming after monitors. I couldn't think of anything
| I'd want less than a smart TV, until this.
| neoncontrails wrote:
| I'd love see it draped uncannily over a table edge, displaying
| one of those Salvador Dali paintings of melting clocks.
| kaycebasques wrote:
| > Here come the bendable TVs and monitors that no one asked for
|
| Great title. Tells you exactly what you're gonna get. Throws in
| some humor.
| jdboyd wrote:
| The title made me think of the iPhone, which also nobody asked
| for.
|
| That said, I am not at all convinced about bendable TVs as
| being introduced right now.
| xwdv wrote:
| Meh, I'm asking for color e-ink display suitable for vim and
| terminal usage. Doesn't even have to be a lot of colors.
| UnpossibleJim wrote:
| Low powered color e-ink and portable is the way to go (readers,
| code stations). I think the hype (if there is even any) over
| rollable displays is vapor.
| nottorp wrote:
| If we're dreaming, how about an e-ink with black default for
| coding / terminals? Real, deep black.
|
| 16 colours will do for syntax highlighting.
|
| But it has to refresh much faster than current e-ink. Can't
| scroll through code at the speed a Kindle refreshes.
| rcarr wrote:
| Do you need deep black/dark mode if the display isn't
| projecting the light into your eyes? I feel like I could be
| fine going back to light mode on eInk or a projector. I can't
| say that when I'm using my kindle that I miss there not being
| a dark mode because the reason I'm using dark mode on the
| other devices in the first place is no longer an issue with
| the kindle.
| xwdv wrote:
| It's hard for me to take work seriously on a lighter
| screen. Black just looks way more expensive.
| Shorel wrote:
| 100 dpi right now. Hopefully 300 dpi in a few years.
|
| I also want this tech to improve, and for the same reasons.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| "In what room do such large, bendable screens belong? If the
| answer is not immediately clear, perhaps they don't belong in
| many people's homes at all."
|
| Love this title. Maybe people will start to catch on. You cannot
| have what you ask for, even if it is possible to make it,^1 but
| you can have more gadgets that surveil your life without alerting
| you to the surveillance. This means these products are always
| useful, not as much to you, the consumer, as to the sellers and
| their business partners who will continue to collect data from
| you long after purchase.
|
| Like the internet-connected "smart speaker" with an always-on
| microphone, these "belong" everywhere. No one asked for this, but
| it is "the latest technology", so just get it.
|
| Whether it improves your life is irrelevant. As with the bendable
| "smart" TVs, the answer to that question is assumed to be "yes".
| What's relevant is that it will improve surveillance and data
| collection for someone else.
|
| The price will keep dropping and the surveillance and ads will
| keep increasing. The "tech" industry calls free websites and
| mobile apps "products". The price is ostensibly zero. No need to
| ask for these "products". Surveillance only requires that you pay
| your internet service bill. Otherwise, it's free.
|
| 1. This is a great forum for reading about what people really
| want, but cannot have. Some will state what they want. Others
| will state they already have it and/or praise what they call
| "progress" and criticise the past. However none of these folks
| asked for what they got and that's why I like this title.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-08 23:01 UTC)