I'm assuming it's probably just a polarizing sheet, similar to the material used in sunglasses. I don't think that would be hard to get, it's the DLP that would be more of a challenge.
-
-
Replying to @hedgeberg @skappy1
Why would it be a polarizer? What purpose would that serve? I figured it would just be some translucent film (e.g. the kind of stuff used for rear projection). But yeah, easy to source something that will work. The DLP is the issue. Though it can't be that hard to reverse...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I'm most intrigued by how noisy it will be... I'd expect that persistence of vision like this will require a fairly high (>60Hz) refresh rate, especially given that this can't rely on phosphor emitting light after the break has moved on...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @attiegrande @marcan42 and
That's a big excursion for what is effectively a large diaphragm...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @attiegrande @marcan42 and
I'd agree that the projection surface will want to take as much of the energy as possible, to give good contrast, while showing the top surface to light... so "fuzzy" / frosted plastic?...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @attiegrande @marcan42 and
Keeping it flat will probably be a challenge, which will be required for distortion-free projection - adding mass to the surface.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @attiegrande @marcan42 and
And I'm not convinced by DLP... If it was located in the centre at the bottom of the unit, you'd probably get a cone of usable protection volume... Laser(s) are required to maintain focus, so possibly a galvanometer / piezo actuator... but still... "cone"... hmm...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @attiegrande @marcan42 and
maybe a source off to the side, with a top/bottom pairing to cover the full travel of the surface? Bit yucky...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @attiegrande @marcan42 and
Also interesting to note that the image is only projected on the rising travel - could probably increase contrast / intensity by displaying on both sweeps. (see the brief slow motion section of their video)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Hector Martin Retweeted Hector Martin
I think they only do 10FPS (and cheat a lot with the close up videos using a slower shutter).https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1010573244661788673?s=19 …
Hector Martin added,
Hector Martin @marcan42Replying to @marcan42 @skappy1That they don't specify the framerate is a red flag, it's probably quite low. Their "1000 FPS" slow-mo gif is a lie, it's definitely not 1000 FPS. Assuming flicker on the top left is 100Hz (e.g. a 50Hz AC rectified LED light) GIF seems to be 200 FPS, and the screen is 10 FPS.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
And they probably only project on the rising edge because it's very hard to correct for the differences of the opposite stroke, wrt screen deformation and such, and you'd get excessive blurring in the Z dimension.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.