brian@asci.UUCP (Brian Douglass) (06/26/87)
Keywords:
I've been asked by a friend to research information about a super-size
monitor. Essentially, what I am looking for is a color monitor that is 10
feet by 10 feet with a resolution of say 13,000 by 13,000--don't ask me what
for because I don't know what for, I'm just the gumshoe--and any necessary
equipment to drive it. (can you imagine what kind of equipment is necessary
to drive 169 million pixels!) Basically, my friend needs to generate some very
large images with extremely fine details. Color is preferable, but not
absolute. Money is not really a concern at this moment, so lets hear anything
you got. Also, if it means building it custom, that is what my friend wants
to know. So IBM, RCA, Tektronik, HP, etc, if you're listening and have any
experience in a monitor this large I would like to hear from you, as well as
if you have any "off-the-top-of-you-head" price estimates send those along. I
fully expect to hear in the millions, but that's okay. Right now, my friend
needs to know if anybody has done this, or if anybody can do this.
I know that there are also some analog systems out and about of this type of
magnitude. Although not preferable, I would like to hear about them as well.
Please E-mail only your responses to me as I am gone periodically on business
and we keep only a days worth of news on our system for a myriad of reasons.
However, I will summarize periodically to comp.graphics the responses I do
receive, as I am sure there are others who are as fascinated as I with the
leviathan proportions of this Mega-Monitor.
Brian Douglass
Applied Systems Consultants, Inc. (ASCI)
P.O. Box 13301
Las Vegas, NV 89103
Office: (702) 733-6761
Home: (702) 871-8182
brian@asci.uucp
UUCP: {akgua,ihnp4,mirror,psivax,sdcrdcf}!otto!jimi!asci!brianrick@datacube.UUCP (07/09/87)
/* Written 11:50 am Jun 26, 1987 by brian@asci.UUCP in datacube:comp.graphics */ /* ---------- "Mega-Monitor" ---------- */ I've been asked by a friend to research information about a super-size monitor. Essentially, what I am looking for is a color monitor that is 10 feet by 10 feet with a resolution of say 13,000 by 13,000--don't ask me what for because I don't know what for, I'm just the gumshoe--and any necessary equipment to drive it. (can you imagine what kind of equipment is necessary to drive 169 million pixels!) Basically, my friend needs to generate some very large images with extremely fine details. Color is preferable, but not absolute. Money is not really a concern at this moment, so lets hear anything you got. Also, if it means building it custom, that is what my friend wants to know. So IBM, RCA, Tektronik, HP, etc, if you're listening and have any experience in a monitor this large I would like to hear from you, as well as if you have any "off-the-top-of-you-head" price estimates send those along. I fully expect to hear in the millions, but that's okay. Right now, my friend needs to know if anybody has done this, or if anybody can do this. /* from UUCP: ihnp4!datacube!rick */ I think you're going to find that the best color resolution available at any price will be about 2Kx2K. The only company I know of talking that kind of resolution is Sony. But be prepared for hairy front-ends also. Somebody made a 300Mhz+ video driver for Sony's monitor and the price was I believe $100K+. Refering to the 13,000 x 13,000 pixel monitor, the best you're going to get is a 19 inch 300 dot per inch monitor from Megascan in Pennsylvania, (sorry no address - this is somewhat of a rumor). They're video rate is reportedly greater than 1 GHz, and they had to use digital GaAs for the final video serialization. sorry if this note is not in line with established network etiquette. /* from UUCP: ihnp4!datacube!rick */
beshers@sylvester.columbia.edu (Clifford Beshers) (07/10/87)
In article <102300005@datacube> rick@datacube.UUCP writes: > >/* Written 11:50 am Jun 26, 1987 by brian@asci.UUCP in datacube:comp.graphics */ >/* ---------- "Mega-Monitor" ---------- */ >I've been asked by a friend to research information about a super-size >monitor. Essentially, what I am looking for is a color monitor that is 10 >feet by 10 feet with a resolution of say 13,000 by 13,000--don't ask me what >for because I don't know what for, I'm just the gumshoe--and any necessary >equipment to drive it. (can you imagine what kind of equipment is necessary >to drive 169 million pixels!) Basically, my friend needs to generate some very >large images with extremely fine details. Color is preferable, but not >absolute. Money is not really a concern at this moment, so lets hear anything >you got. Also, if it means building it custom, that is what my friend wants >to know. So IBM, RCA, Tektronik, HP, etc, if you're listening and have any >experience in a monitor this large I would like to hear from you, as well as >if you have any "off-the-top-of-you-head" price estimates send those along. I >fully expect to hear in the millions, but that's okay. Right now, my friend >needs to know if anybody has done this, or if anybody can do this. >/* from UUCP: ihnp4!datacube!rick */ > Interesting. I'm no expert in this sort of thing, but I will take some wild stabs. The first stab is that you are trying to do something too soon. Wait five years and it might be feasible. Okay, you can't wait. Do you need real time response? Will slides do? You can use a digital film recorder to make 4kx4k images (e.g. Matrix QCR) and then make a special slide projector to paste all the pieces together. Or perhaps get Matrix to handle higher resolution. 13Kx13K is high enough I think to go beyond the resolution of a standard slide, so you would need to handle larger film frames. This seems like a reasonable bet; it would probably cost less than a million, you would get high resolution, good colors, etc. It would just take a while to make a slide. Now that seems nice, but considering that your friend doesn't think much of a few million and has 13kx13k, it could be your friend is Uncle Sam playing with satellite photographs, so you probably already have them on film. So say you need a real monitor. I sincerely doubt that anybody can build something at that resolution using the standard raster architecture with a video controller and a phosphor screen, though the might say they could if you paid them enough. What you would have to do is look for a frame buffer that displays it's image on color lcd's through a direct connection. If you read in SIGGRAPH '86 about the Pixel Planes machine (Fuchs, et. al.) at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, you will find an architecture that has these possiblities. I believe they tried manufacturing chips with LCD's built right on top and had a low success rate. Theoretically, there is no limit to the resolution of this machine; it would just require a *lot* of custom VLSI chips and a *lot* of power to drive it. Some special busses too, probably. I've forgotten the actual hardware specs. My guess would be that 13kx13k would run you several hundred thousand a month in power alone. But hey, you could make one kick ass flight simulator. I suppose there is one more alternative; make a frame buffer controller that can handle many small frame buffers, each of say 2kx2k. Shouldn't be too hard to build. You could probably do it with a microcoded microprocessor or ten or twenty. Then use existing video controllers to create the proper video signal, and build a setup with a projector for each segment 14kx14k would give you 49 projectors which would be a real bitch to calibrate, but it would come close. Neat problem. Wait five years. Cliff Beshers Columbia University Computer Science Department beshers@sylvester.columbia.edu
lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Christopher Lishka) (07/14/87)
I don't quite remember, but didn't Sony make this incredibly large TV
screen for some Expo (or something) that was held somewhere in Japan?
Seems to me I saw a picture of this, and the screen was absolutely
enormous! Must've over 10 feet by 10 feet (no joke!), but I don't
know what the resolution was like.
Sorry about being so vague. I do know that Sony made this gigantic
screen and it was been shown at some large fair ('cause the pictures I
saw showed average Japanese people watching this thing outside), but I
don't recall where or when I saw it.
--
Chris Lishka /lishka@uwslh.uucp
Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene <-lishka%uwslh.uucp@rsch.wisc.edu
\{seismo, harvard,topaz,...}!uwvax!uwslh!lishkabond@endot.UUCP (Angus Bond) (07/15/87)
> Paraphrased: "I want a 10'x10' high resolution > monitor with resolution of roughly 13000x13000." Medium-tech solution: At the 1987 Design Automation Conference, the DEC booth had an interesting set-up that included about 60 15-inch TV's in a matrix roughly 6x8. All of them were showing images from their respective portions of a much larger image. The effect was as if looking through a paned window at a movie. (Imagine the number of VCR's and the syncronization needed !!) Low-tech solution: Use 70-mm film (or IMAX). No joke, it really works! You can project on any size screen you want. At the SIGGRAPH held in Minneapolis (1984?), people generated computer graphics onto IMAX film for display in a planetarium with raked seating. Very nice. For a high-tech solution, you can only get about 2000x2000 resolution using today's monitors. You will also have to pay dearly for it. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Angus Bond "To make the best better." Endot, Inc. -- 4-H Motto 11001 Cedar Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44106 (216) 229-8900 decvax!cwruecmp!endot!bond =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) (07/17/87)
The current issue of Popular Science has an article about a prototype
8000x8000 display using a mechanically-deflected laser beam. This isn't a
new idea; it was tried in the 1970s, using photochromic glass as the target.
(These are glasses that darken when hit by UV and are erased with IR.
Kilowatts of IR, applied for several seconds.)
The end result is a static high-resolution display, like the old Tektronix
storage tubes. Unclear what the new system uses as a storage medium.
(Just scanning a very bright, tightly focused laser beam across a screen
and relying on persistence of vision is considered dangerous.)
Historically, of course, anything that appears first in Popular Science
is unlikely to ever make it to the market. They love flat-screen TV articles,
and have been announcing the iminent arrival of flat-screen TV intermittently
since the late 1950s.
Actually, it would be useful if one of the monitor manufacturers
packaged the squarest tube available in a rectangular stackable cabinet
designed to get the edges of the tube as close as possible to the edges of the
cabinet. This would provide a practical solution for people who need a big
display but can tolerate visible divisions between sections.
Both Sony and Mitsubishi build giant color TV screens in the 100 to 300
foot width range. These are typically used in stadiums. The technology is
not exotic; they just have three lamps, glow-tubes, or LEDs per pixel.
The number of pixels is limited only by your budget. Prices are in the
low millions of dollars for TV-type resolution, but getting better as
more of these devices are manufactured.
John Naglecmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (07/21/87)
The goal :
10' X 10' screen displaying an image 13K X 13K pixels. (In color)
Out of the box you won't find anything. For lower resolutions
check out 'JumboTron' made by Sony for sports stadiums.
I saw a display once (back when hi-res color was very expensive) which
consisted of four crts, mounted in a rack side by side, in a 2 X 2 array.
The crts had fresnel(sp?) lenses in front of them to magnify the screens
such that they abutted each other. Using a 13" screen (which is actually
n x n where n ~ 13/1.4 ~ 9") and 1K x 1K resolution. An array of 13 by
13 monitors would be (13/1.41)*13/12 ~ 119 inches ~ 10'. At a distance
of twenty feet you could probably ignore the edge effects of the crts.
Crude yes, and you would need 169 frame buffers (assuming 24 bits/pixel)
thats 507 megs of frame store (maybe you could use it as a ram disk when
the monitors were off ?)
A somewhat more practical approach would be to use lasers rather
than crts. Modulate a laser in much the same way as a crt and use three
of them to scan the screen (R, G, B). In either case you are talking
big bucks here.
--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.farren@hoptoad.uucp (Mike Farren) (07/22/87)
In article <23912@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: > > A somewhat more practical approach would be to use lasers rather >than crts. Modulate a laser in much the same way as a crt and use three >of them to scan the screen (R, G, B). In either case you are talking >big bucks here. The electroptics whizzes at Zenith tried this, using Bragg cells as modulators/deflectors, and three tuned lasers for the colors. Unviewable. The problem is the scintillations typical of laser light (interference patterns, actually, and did you realize that you can determine if you are farsighted or nearsighted by the way the scintillations move when you move your head?). They never did find a good way of eliminating the scintillation effects, and had to abandon the project. -- ---------------- "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness Mike Farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." hoptoad!farren Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"
gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (07/27/87)
In article <23912@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: > A somewhat more practical approach would be to use lasers rather >than crts. Modulate a laser in much the same way as a crt and use three >of them to scan the screen (R, G, B). In either case you are talking >big bucks here. farren@hoptoad.uucp (Mike Farren) wrote: > The electroptics whizzes at Zenith tried this, using Bragg cells as > modulators/deflectors, and three tuned lasers for the colors. Unviewable. Funny, some folks at A. D. 2000 in Santa Clara did this and it worked just fine. They used three lasers, acousto-optical modulators, traditional galvanometers for the vertical deflection, and a spinning manysided mirror in vacuum at some phenomenal rotation (30,000 RPM?) for the horizontal scan. The result was a bright movie screen sized picture from any NTSC video source. We hooked it up to a modified Sun-1 color board, and saw images from 'live' TV as well as from videodisks. It took a special screen, but nothing unavailable, just more expensive. They had exactly one prototype, which worked well but was not portable. They claimed that it could be modified to handle up to 1000x1000 by splitting the beams, adding more modulators, and painting N horizontal scan lines in one horizontal scan. Increasing the horizontal scan rate would be hard, but increasing the number of horiz pixels was easy, since they weren't at the edge of modulator technology, and increasing the # of vertical pixels could be done by painting more than one line at a time. This is a far cry from 13Kx13K but it's a start. The company had financial troubles because the genius engineer who made all this work somehow got linked up with somebody I wouldn't trust, as his "company president". The president owned like 50% of the stock, the engineer 25%. I considered investing years ago but wouldn't put money near the president. I keep meaning to call the engineer and see what he is doing these days... -- {dasys1,ncoast,well,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@postgres.berkeley.edu Alt.all: the alternative radio of the Usenet.