|
|
|
This thread is locked; no one can reply to it.
|
1
2
|
| My blue cones are slower than my red cones |
|
Goalie Ca
Member #2,579
July 2002
 |
Dolby purchased brightside.. so same thing. It's a local company here in vancouver. If i remember from the tech demo (i wasn't there but someone in lab who was, talked about it, and this was almost a year ago i think), They basically ripped out the back of an lcd, and created some sort of modulated led background. The front of an lcd is basically made transistors that either allow light to pass through or not. In normal monitors there is a single light source that stays constant with "monitor brightness" across the whole plane. In this version the light sources can turn on and off. I believe this still has the issue of fine grained performance of the front of the monitor, but the black range in particular has a much better. I'm not sure about performance in terms of switching on and off but i'd suspect that it would be slightly slower. I'm also not sure how fine grained the back led's are. Quite large IIRC. Since no video cards or media actually come in hdr (8bpp currently), they basically use software tricks to try and convert signals to it. THis will work wonders with medical imaging because lcd's give piss poor contrast ratios. Film is still better in that regard. But with medical imaging we do get datasets that are 12bit sometimes. In fact... my data all comes in floating point. As of today we have the data to display and practical uses (people are willing to pay big bucks for medical stuff). It will be quite a while longer though till cameras and video change. CCD's just aren't there yet and it'll clearly be a while till there is a commercial market. ------------- |
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
 |
I built some remote-diagnostic software for a company that serviced medical equipment (CT scanners, etc). As part of the diagnostics, the technicians needed to see the gray scale images because it was the easiest way for them to tell if something was wrong. A lot of times the images were in 12-bit gray scale data, but of course I had to convert them to 8-bit PNGs for use in web browsers. They never complained about the quality, but I suppose it's what they were use to seeing. (That is, I doubt the technicians looked at the printed copies.) But regarding LCD's... I'd take them over CRT any day. CRT's look so fuzzy to me, and any refresh rate less than 85Hz gives me headaches. I can noticeably see the refresh on anything less, although not nearly as pronounced as what you see on TV. |
|
BAF
Member #2,981
December 2002
 |
My eyes were always sore when I had my CRT, and I could notice a difference in sharpness and image quality when I got on my laptop. Now that I have an LCD for my main computer, my eyes are never sore, and everything looks so much better. |
|
Johan Halmén
Member #1,550
September 2001
|
Yes, the CRT is brighter and has therefore better contrast. And therefore irritates your eyes more. It's not fun to watch a better screen with hurting eyes. In the end you don't win. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest. |
|
James Stanley
Member #7,275
May 2006
 |
Jesus... |
|
|
1
2
|
