91–100 of 151 posts
Amazing. Could turn this into a 4 color display at the cost of drawing speed?
Yes! I have an RGB sensor that could handle that, but it's more bulky than the simple IR on/off sensor I went with. Could be four colors, or four shades of a color.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Similarly, the camera could stay face-on and double the pixel count with largely the same hardware.
For this to work, you'd want two adjacent faces painted, rather than opposite faces being painted, which seems to be how they're currently done (unless they only have one face painted?). Then the four possible rotations would allow for each possible pixel-pair. (The cubes could perhaps instead be squat rectangular prisms, to correct the aspect ratio, too.)
Super cool project! I see the map on the wall.. where in Wisconsin are ya?
Another idea: have the cubes point an edge straight forward (instead of a face). Then if each cube has two adjacent dark sides and two adjacent light sides, one could setup two ‘simultaneous’ images: one viewed from the left at 45° and another viewed from the right. (Each pixel would have four possibilities.)
If you're willing to sacrifice a color just use triangles/prisms the faces could then just be virtually adjacent and still rotate independently https://excalidraw.com/#json=driyv7dR-eODBzuh_hdrk,93QQvkYae...
https://www.rotapanel.com/trivision-mechanism-and-prism-type...
Also, I'm surprised "All your base are belong to us!" hasn't been submitted yet!
This has to be the the most expensive cost per pixel display I've ever seen. And I've never loved a display more. This is absurd in the best possible way
Another idea: have the cubes point an edge straight forward (instead of a face). Then if each cube has two adjacent dark sides and two adjacent light sides, one could setup two ‘simultaneous’ images: one viewed from the left at 45° and another viewed from the right. (Each pixel would have four possibilities.)