Shameless plug:
I build devices like that and sell them. Battery powered.
https://framelabs.eu/en/product/artframe-31/
I use the 31.2" panel because it is 40% cheaper and has higher DPI, but the 42" panel is also possible.
Show HN: Building a 42-inch E-Ink frame for generative art
201–210 of 211 posts
Re: Show HN: Building a 42-inch E-Ink frame for generative art
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
>As long as e-ink has been around, all I've ever heard were the patent issues. If you're saying it's actually manufacturing difficulties, can you provide any links or additional info? For the record, the "patents" think has no links to back it up either. But to answer your question: E-ink screens are less than $100 (depending on the size), that's already pretty cheap. They're only expensive when compared to LCDs . LC…
Sounds kinda like a problem looking for a solution, you could emagine e-ink taking off for a lot of thing sthat currently are not digital, but it would need to be also cheaper. If e-ink was x100 cheaper, we could use it in x1000 more use-cases
E-ink isn't that different from LCD tech; if we could make e-ink for $0.50 per screen then we could probably make LCD screens for about the same.
The core problem hasn't changed, though: LCD covers more use-cases than e-ink does; it even has better battery life than e-ink in some scenarios! (E-ink screen refreshes take a lot of energy more energy than LCDs, although they only refresh once per interaction instead of 60 times a second)
E-ink sounds cool (and is cool), but it's not practical. It's the zeppelin of electronic displays.
Re: Show HN: Building a 42-inch E-Ink frame for generative art
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds kinda like a problem looking for a solution, you could emagine e-ink taking off for a lot of thing sthat currently are not digital, but it would need to be also cheaper. If e-ink was x100 cheaper, we could use it in x1000 more use-cases
even just x10 cheaper would put it at double the price of LCD and that already has uses
Nametag-sized e-ink screens are already approximately the price of LCDs - a few dollars, perhaps double the price of LCD.
Giant E-ink screens are expensive because they're made by fusing together 4 smaller e-ink screens (4 of 10.3" or 13.3" screens IIRC), but the process is expensively done by hand because there's simply not enough demand to warrant automating the process. There's just no money in giant 1Hz monitors.
Re: Show HN: Building a 42-inch E-Ink frame for generative art
#204I thought I'd heard of all the dithering options from https://tannerhelland.com/2012/12/28/dithering-eleven-algori... , but surprised to read there's another one ( https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/3288 ) that was used in this project.
Blue noise dithering seems to be a form of ordered dithering which is better than other forms of ordered dithering, but in terms of quality it is not as good as error diffusion dithering (look up the Wikipedia comparison on the statue of David). But blue noise dithering has the advantage that it can be implemented as a pixel shader, unlike error diffusion. So it can e.g. be used for video games. So I think for the pi…
It's called blue noise dithering because it's not ordered. Error diffusion dithering approximates blue noise dithering (poorly, I might add). What error diffusion has going for it is very low overhead, and built-in edge-enhancement if you pick your kernels right.
Re: Show HN: Building a 42-inch E-Ink frame for generative art
#205anything to not ask artists for display permission or pay a dime
Re: Show HN: Building a 42-inch E-Ink frame for generative art
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
Question for you. I always saw the problem as: only one company or limited companies can manufacture them. Those companies are having issues manufacturing them so the price is high. But if more companies were allowed to manufacture them, wouldn’t we see more people solving production problems and lowering prices? If there is one company with low yields and high prices, if everyone is allowed to make them then there i…
> I always saw the problem as: only one company or limited companies can manufacture them. That is a really odd assumption. There are multiple companies making electrophoretic displays and multiple different technologies, of which only one is really commercially effective so far in a very limited niche space. Why don't you think physics is the limitation? I mean, don't you think above would be the equivalent of me sa…
Probably the parent simply doesn't have a solid grasp of physics, hence is unable to think of that limitation.
A surprisingly large fraction of seemingly intelligent, educated, and otherwise decent folks have no clue beyond a superficial understanding. Even though superficial appearances may suggest that they would be smart enough to figure out what they do and do not know.
Re: Show HN: Building a 42-inch E-Ink frame for generative art
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
The E-ink patent holder is one of the most egregious cases of patent trolls. They won't lower the prices.
When do the patents end? They've been around for a while now.
E-Ink's original patents have already expired. What's more, there's already competing tech (DES/the cofferdam tech) that doesn't use their tech in the first place.
Re: Show HN: Building a 42-inch E-Ink frame for generative art
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blue noise dithering seems to be a form of ordered dithering which is better than other forms of ordered dithering, but in terms of quality it is not as good as error diffusion dithering (look up the Wikipedia comparison on the statue of David). But blue noise dithering has the advantage that it can be implemented as a pixel shader, unlike error diffusion. So it can e.g. be used for video games. So I think for the pi…
It's called blue noise dithering because it's not ordered. Error diffusion dithering approximates blue noise dithering (poorly, I might add). What error diffusion has going for it is very low overhead, and built-in edge-enhancement if you pick your kernels right.
Wikipedia calls blue noise dithering a form of ordered dithering. Error diffusion indeed looks similar to blue noise dithering, but the amount of preserved detail of blue noise dithering is more like that of Ordered Bayer, lower than error diffusion. At least in the example images on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither
Re: Show HN: Building a 42-inch E-Ink frame for generative art
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's called blue noise dithering because it's not ordered. Error diffusion dithering approximates blue noise dithering (poorly, I might add). What error diffusion has going for it is very low overhead, and built-in edge-enhancement if you pick your kernels right.
Wikipedia calls blue noise dithering a form of ordered dithering. Error diffusion indeed looks similar to blue noise dithering, but the amount of preserved detail of blue noise dithering is more like that of Ordered Bayer, lower than error diffusion. At least in the example images on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither
If I CTRL+F for "blue noise" on the wiki page I can find nothing suggesting that (and I promise I haven't ninja-edited anything), so I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere. Could you please cite the passage that gave you this impression, so we can clear up how we end up drawing different conclusions?
EDIT: Oh, I think I see the source of confusion:
> A matrix tuned for blue noise, such as those generated by the void-and-cluster method, produces a look closer to that of an error diffusion dither method.
If you use a dithering matrix it is by definition ordered, yes. Because it is tiling that matrix in a regular pattern. The matrix has been randomized via a blue-noise method. The test image seems to use a 16 by 16 matrix, which is very small - the seams are clearly recognizable.
However, "blue noise dithering" typically refers to generating a blue noise texture as large as the image to be dithered. This article does so, for example:
https://surma.dev/things/ditherpunk/
But yeah, I can understand the confusion now. The wording of the wiki article could be clearer.
PS: in case your curiosity has been piqued, here are some more articles on blue noise and dithering:
https://blog.demofox.org/2018/01/30/what-the-heck-is-blue-no...
https://blog.demofox.org/2019/06/25/generating-blue-noise-te...
Re: Show HN: Building a 42-inch E-Ink frame for generative art
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Actually I think patents do far more harm than good in our economy. How so? Nobody would bother investing in R&D if after all their labor and toil, someone else would be legally allowed to copy it for free and get all the profits without having had any of the expenses and risk that come with hardware R&D. The (US)patent system has its flaws, but without one it would be even worse.
> Nobody would bother investing in R&D if after all their labor and toil, someone else would be legally allowed to copy it for free and get all the profits without having had any of the expenses and risk that come with hardware R&D. People say this all the time without presenting any evidence, as if it is common sense. I don’t actually think this is correct! Of course the character of investment would change. Instead…
Interesting point. But I can be sure that your idea has big chance to be uncorrect. Because we already have a country without patent esp for software: China. Do you know any invention or great product from China?