Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Transparent OLEDs

oled.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 168 posts

Re: Transparent OLEDs

#111

Post by TeMPOraL »

Negitivefrags wrote: post #45
NoSorryCannot wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tangentially related, the "futuristic" displays in video games and movies and TV often look worse than what we'd see in real life. Sometimes it's a hologram, which would be cool even if the fidelity were a bit shit, but it's interesting that art directors make them pretty bad looking even in fiction, presumably as a cue to the viewer that it's a hologram. Any fiction that portrays holograms as opaque and convincing u…

I was particulary offended by this in the recent Star Trek: Picard. In previous shows the Federation has demonstrated the ability to create totally flawless and interactable holograms. Yet somehow in this show everyone has switched over to glowly flickering interfaces hovering over your desk. In the headquarters of Star Fleet, a giant hologram of a star ship is in the atrium, and it glitches out for a moment as the c…

ST:Picard and ST:Discovery are unfortunately both regressions where it comes to ST wordbuilding and style. Frankly, Lower Decks - currently airing animated "Rick&Morty meets ST:TNG" - does it better. Holograms there look and behave like they should.

Re: Transparent OLEDs

#112

Post by mindfulhack »

JDW1023 wrote: post #104
m463 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is dell as untrustworthy as lenovo? I do remember the lenovo driver that installed itself from the bios - even on a clean windows install - and would snoop for months and then silently uninstall itself. EDIT: here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenovo#Lenovo_Service_Engine However I have not heard much about dell.

Alot of vendors (Lenovo[0], ASUS, Dell, ) are using Windows Platform Binary Table, WPBT ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18095848 ) to get the OS to execute binary. Dell seem to use it to load the Absolute's Lojack anti theft rootkit[1]. Also on Absolute's website there's a list[2] of manufacturers that are using Absolute Persistance[3]. [0]: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/lenov... [1]:…

Wow. Almost every Linux distribution would never enable such a thing. As for Apple's Macs, it's all a black box in and of itself.

Re: Transparent OLEDs

#113

Post by TeMPOraL »

wyattpeak wrote: post #81
jmiller099 wrote: post #12

Transparent OLED on subway video https://en.oledspace.com/a-closer-look-into-beijings-futuris...

I can't tell if it's a feature of the screen or just the very dark nature of subway tunnels, but I really like the fact that the screen goes completely opaque on the bright blue screens. Transparent screens could be useful in all sorts of scenarios, but I think tech demos too often ignore the fact that, most of the time, you want the image to be as clear as possible, which means opaque.

I'd love to see transparent screens in windows, like, real holes in buildings and furniture that are usually filled with glass. This would be a step towards ambient computing.

Re: Transparent OLEDs

#115

Post by atoav »

crazygringo wrote: post #39
gopalv wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> put the webcam behind the display The first time I saw an optical finger print sensor under a glass display, that was my immediate hope that it would kick off an under-glass optics explosion. > everyone gets to make direct eye contact again! As someone who doesn't always have "good" days with eye-contact, being forced to do that feels a bit terrifying.

Nobody's forcing you to make eye contact. :) You can still be totally free to not look directly at the person while talking to them. I mean, in normal conversation it's not like you're making constant eye contact anyways. If you did, you'd come across as a total psychopath. It's just so that when you want to make eye contact, you have that choice!

This is btw. a very common error bad/inexperienced actors make: they have more eye contact with the other person than would be normal in that situation. If you observe people in their natural habitat (e.g. two strangers meeting), many look at something else while talking and only have short gazes at each other in order to check if the words arrived. Sometimes there are longer periods of looking at each other but it is nearly never all the time, unless it is some sort of power play.

Re: Transparent OLEDs

#116

Post by atoav »

momirlan wrote: post #60
crazygringo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody's forcing you to make eye contact. :) You can still be totally free to not look directly at the person while talking to them. I mean, in normal conversation it's not like you're making constant eye contact anyways. If you did, you'd come across as a total psychopath. It's just so that when you want to make eye contact, you have that choice!

now i figured why i creep people out

Gazing at people is usually part of power play or makes people feel you want the control or don't trust them. Some people will feel uncomfortable to even look at you if your gaze fixates them.

Give people a chance to have an "unobserved" look at you — this makes no sense, but might make things less tense.

Re: Transparent OLEDs

#118

Post by mytailorisrich »

GICodeWarrior wrote: post #16

If you put your webcam behind your video chat window, you can achieve better eye contact with your remote participants. I wonder how well a webcam can see through these screens and/or how much of a hole would be required in the rendered image to avoid obstructing the camera.

Last year showed a smartphone that was exactly like that: The camera was embedded behind the screen. [1]

[1] https://www.cnet.com/news/xiaomi-shows-off-camera-built-into...

Re: Transparent OLEDs

#119

Post by grawprog »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #107
grawprog wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I can see the discussion at hardware manufacturers now. Marketing: 'So, we can monitor users and collect sellable data through a camera hidden behind their monitor?' Engineer: 'Why yes, but maybe we should allow users to disable this through some kind of hardware switch. It could lead to potential privacy violations etc.' Marketing: 'If they turned it off could we still collect marketable data?' Engineer: 'Well n…

Ethical engineer: Not if you want anyone to keep working here. Also, it'll make the news. No.

Marketing: Make the news eh? Well any publicity's good publicity and we can outsource these kinds of things can't we? Maybe we could save a bit of money that way. Excellent idea. Get right on it.

Re: Transparent OLEDs

#120

Post by namibj »

mrfusion wrote: post #26
crazygringo wrote: post #17

I'm excited for transparent OLED's simply so that laptops and monitors will be able to put the webcam behind the display, ~1/3 from the top. Then videoconferencing software can automatically move the image of the person you're talking to so their eyes are roughly centered on that point. And finally everyone gets to make direct eye contact again!

I’m curious why software can’t correct this now? Messenger can make me look like a sheep, can’t it move my gaze?

What we have today is called "teleprompter", and not even particularly recent. With some slight pre-distortion and a tilted monitor it should also handle the focus issue a classic teleprompter setup has. Basically, you just place a half-reflective mirror at a 45 degree angle, lay the screen flat facing up (I propose a slight back-tilt "so the camera can see better", but you loose contrast due to viewing angle, which would ideally be corrected by the LCD), and look at the camera that's behind the mirror, while being able to view the screen in the mirror.
Post reply on HN