DOCSLIB.ORG

Virtual Rear Projection: Improving the User Experience with Multiple Redundant Projectors

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Virtual Rear Projection: Improving the User Experience with Multiple Redundant Projectors VIRTUAL REAR PROJECTION: IMPROVING THE USER EXPERIENCE WITH MULTIPLE REDUNDANT PROJECTORS A Thesis Presented to The Academic Faculty by Jay W. Summet In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology December 2007 VIRTUAL REAR PROJECTION: IMPROVING THE USER EXPERIENCE WITH MULTIPLE REDUNDANT PROJECTORS Approved by: Professor Gregory D. Abowd Professor Gregory M. Corso College of Computing School of Psychology Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Technology Professor James M. Rehg Dr. Jeffrey S. Pierce College of Computing Almaden Research Center Georgia Institute of Technology IBM Professor Elizabeth Mynatt Dr. Claudio Pinhanez College of Computing T.J. Watson Research Center Georgia Institute of Technology IBM Date Approved: 31 July 2007 To my parents, who made sure I had everything I needed to succeed, and to my sister, le Petit Chaperon rouge. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people have helped me along the way, but my advisers, Jim and Gregory, have always been in the forefront. I am thankful to Jim for introducing me to an exciting research topic and guiding the technical development and Gregory for his advice on evaluation and the PhD program in general. I am especially grateful for the time and effort my external committee members, Claudio Pinhanez and Jeff Pierce spent working with me on my research and the document. Other professors at Georgia Tech have helped me both with my thesis and with other interests. Greg Corso encouraged and improved my user evaluations even before he was on my committee. Beth Mynatt provided guidance on balancing the technology and human side of the research, as well as encouragement throughout. John Stasko provided valuable advice and feedback on publications. Jim Foley, Mark Guzdial and Thad Starner provided advice, support and encouragement in non-thesis areas of my academic career. I wish to express my gratitude to my wife Valerie for her continuous moral support. My peers at the College of Computing provided advice and guidance, and were great people to spend a large part of my life with. To those who went before me, thanks for the encouragement and guidance. To those who traveled with me, thanks for all the fun. And for those who are following, good luck! iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ......................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................... iv LISTOFTABLES ....................................... ix LISTOFFIGURES ...................................... x SUMMARY........................................... xiv I DISPLAYTECHNOLOGIESFORINTERACTIVESURFACES . 1 1.1 Overview of Display Technologies . ...... 3 1.1.1 Direct Image Display Technologies . .... 3 1.1.2 Projection Technologies . 7 1.1.3 Eye-Coupled Display Technologies . .... 9 1.2 Why Virtual Rear Projection? . 10 II RELATEDWORK.................................... 13 2.1 Large Displays & Applications . 13 2.2 Projected Display Technology . ..... 14 2.3 Shadow Elimination and Blinding Light Suppression . ........... 17 III INITIAL DEVELOPMENTOFFRONTPROJECTIONFORINTERACTIVE SURFACES 19 3.1 Warped Front Projection . 19 3.2 Passive Virtual Rear Projection . ...... 20 3.3 Computer Vision and Homographies for Calibration . .......... 21 IV PVRPEVALUATION .................................. 23 4.1 Projection Technologies Studied . ....... 23 4.2 StudySetup..................................... 25 4.2.1 EquipmentSetup.............................. 25 4.2.2 StudyParticipants ...... ..... ...... ...... ..... 26 4.2.3 StudyTasks ................................ 26 4.3 Results ....................................... 27 4.3.1 SubjectiveResults ...... ..... ...... ...... ..... 28 v 4.3.2 Quantitative Measures: Speed & Accuracy . ..... 30 4.3.3 CopingStrategies ............................. 32 4.3.4 Participant Awareness of Shadow Coping Strategies . ......... 34 4.4 Followup Blinding Light Comfort Level Study . ........ 34 4.5 Discussion ..................................... 36 V ACTIVEVIRTUALREARPROJECTION . 39 5.1 ShadowElimination ............................... 39 5.1.1 Occlusion detection . 40 5.1.2 EliminatingShadows ........................... 41 5.2 Shadow Elimination + Blinding Light Suppression . .......... 42 5.2.1 OcclusionDetection . 44 5.2.2 Iterative Photometric Compensation . ...... 44 5.2.3 ShadowElimination ............................ 46 5.2.4 Blinding Light Suppression . 46 5.2.5 Integrated System for Shadow Elimination and Blinding Light Suppression 47 5.3 Switching...................................... 49 5.3.1 OcclusionDetection . 50 5.3.2 Photometric Uniformity . 51 5.3.3 EdgeBlending............................... 53 5.3.4 Improving Performance using the GPU . 55 5.4 Quantitative Evaluation of Virtual Rear Projection Methods ........... 56 5.4.1 ExperimentalSetup ............................ 58 VI PROCAMSTOOLKIT.................................. 61 6.1 PROCAMSAbstractions. 62 6.2 PROCAMSApplications. 63 6.2.1 Redundant Illumination - WinPVRP . 64 6.2.2 Warped Front Projection - Banner Display . ..... 66 6.3 PROCAMSArchitecture. 67 6.4 PROCAMScodesamples ............................. 69 6.4.1 Allocating and Positioning a Display . ..... 69 6.4.2 Calibrating Redundant Projectors using Computer Vision ........ 70 vi 6.4.3 NativeImageFormat ........................... 72 VII EVALUATIONSTUDIES ............................... 74 7.1 ResearchQuestions............................... 74 7.2 StudyFormat.................................... 76 7.2.1 Tasks.................................... 77 7.2.2 Rationale for Task Selection . 78 7.3 Participants.................................... 79 7.3.1 Aerospace Engineering Students (Aerospace Task) . ......... 80 7.3.2 College Students (Hangman task) . 80 7.4 Experimental Procedure . 80 7.4.1 ResearchProcedure ............................ 81 7.4.2 Researcher Focus Group Questions . 81 7.5 Analysis & Results: Aerospace Task . ...... 82 7.5.1 Research Metrics & Analysis . 83 7.5.2 UserPreference .............................. 85 7.5.3 Annoyance of Blinding Light . 88 7.5.4 ImageQuality ............................... 90 7.5.5 MeanGroupActivity ........................... 91 7.5.6 Interaction Patterns with the Board . ..... 94 7.5.7 PerceivedValueofAVRP . 97 7.6 Analysis & Results: Hangman Task . 98 7.6.1 UserPreference .............................. 99 7.6.2 Annoyance of Blinding Light . 102 7.6.3 ImageQuality ............................... 106 7.6.4 MeanUserActivity ............................ 107 7.6.5 PerceivedValueofAVRP . 110 7.7 Study Similarities and Contrasts . ....... 112 7.8 Reflections on Research Methodology . 115 7.8.1 Equipment & Researcher Reliability . 116 7.8.2 Reflections on Task Selection . 117 7.9 Conclusions..................................... 118 vii 7.9.1 UserPreference .............................. 119 7.9.2 Benefits of Redundant Illumination & Blinding Light Suppression . 120 7.9.3 Claims ................................... 122 VIII FUTUREDIRECTIONS&CONCLUSIONS. 124 8.1 FutureDirections................................ 124 8.2 Conclusions..................................... 125 Bibliography ....................................... 133 viii LIST OF TABLES 1 Mean (Standard Deviation) subjective measures on a 7 point scale, on image quality and annoyance of projected light on a front projection screen. Bold data indicates statistical significance. 35 2 Algorithm Performance Measures . 58 ix LIST OF FIGURES 1 left to right: Front Projection, Virtual Rear Projection, Rear Projection....... 2 2 WarpedFrontProjection ............................. 19 3 Passive Virtual Rear Projection . ...... 20 4 Taxonomy of Projection Technologies in our study. .......... 24 5 Center target and the eight possible box starting positions. ............. 27 6 (Top) Subjective scores from participant questionnaires. (Bottom) Pairwise com- parisons of Image Quality, Preference, and Acceptance scores based upon treatment condition. Positive numbers indicate the condition scored higher than the “com- pared with” condition. Statistically significant differences (p<0.05) are presented in bold........................................... 28 7 (Top) Acquire times in the Box task with number of occluded boxes in each condi- tion. (Bottom) Pairwise comparisons of Box Acquire Time (in milliseconds) based upon treatment condition. Positive numbers indicate how much slower the “condi- tion” is than the “compared with” condition. All statistically significant differences (p<0.05) are presented in bold............................. 31 8 Acquire time for occluded and unoccluded boxes. ......... 32 9 Participant exhibiting the edge-of-screen coping strategy while working the Box Task in the Front Projection condition. ....... 33 10 Projector locations and beam-paths for a 17.5ft (5.3m) wide electronic whiteboard using passive virtual rear projection. Users find it extremely difficult to avoid stand- ing within projection beams. 35 11 Additions to projection technologies taxonomy. ............ 38 12 Left:Shadow Elimination. Right: Penumbral shadows are eliminated but the blind- inglightremains. ................................... 39 13 This diagram summarizes the occlusion detection and shadow elimination algo- rithms. The images in the left column were taken by the system camera during operation. The two penumbral occlusions caused by the person blocking both pro- jectors are identified and corrected to create a shadow-free display (bottom left). Seetextfordetails. ................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Depthq HD 3D Projector 2009 Lightspeed PDF WEB
    Affordable HD3D3D From the originators of portable 3D projection. The New DepthQ® HD 3D Video Projector The world’s rst portable WXGA stereoscopic 3D projector. DepthQ® HD 3D projectors oer rock-solid, 120Hz stereo 3D at 1280x720 resolution. These bright, professional-level 3D projectors can easily display 10 ft (3.0m) diagonal 3D high-denition images using the latest Texas Instruments DLP® and BrilliantColor™ technologies - for stunning colors, a 2000:1 contrast ratio, and a truly unprecedented level of price-performance. Aordable – A fraction of the cost of other single- lens 3D projectors Flicker-free, 120 Hz HD 3D with DLP ® Quality – ® DepthQ HD 3D Projector depthQ.com BrilliantColor TM technology Portable – At 6.9 pounds it ts under your arm and takes less than 5 minutes to set up First in its class: Lightspeed Design presents the portable stereo 3D solution. The DepthQ® HD 3D video projector is a revolutionary lightweight single lens Versatile – Work live in 3D-enabled applications; quality projector capable of achieving frame rates of 120 Hz. When used with a control 3D lm or video game development; stereoscopic 3D image source and liquid crystal shutter glasses, DepthQ® HD bring immersive 3D games into your home 3D projectors will provide a rock-solid high-denition stereo 3D experience. Product Design, Engineering and Research The new DepthQ® HD 3D projector (patent-pending) is a product of Stereo 3D is scientically proven as the most eective way to communicate visual ideas. The Lightspeed Design Inc., co-developed new DepthQ® HD 3D projectors make stereo viewing an aordable choice for anyone working with InFocus Corporation.
    [Show full text]
  • Screen Size Selection
    Screen Size Selection One of the most important decisions in screen selection is to determine the correct size of screen based upon the dimensions of the audience area and the projection format(s) to be used. In some situations, these two questions yield the same answer; in • Ceiling Height—The bottom of the screen should be approximately others they do not and compromises must be made. Here are the key 40–48" above the floor in a room with a level floor and several rows considerations— of seats. In rooms with theatre seating or only one or two rows, • Audience Area—In determining the correct screen size in relation to such as a home theatre, the bottom of the screen should usually be the audience area, the goal is to make the screen large enough so 24–36" above the floor. Try to make sure that the lower part of the those in the rear of the audience area can read the subject matter screen will be visible from all seats. Extra drop may be required to easily, but not so large that those in the front of the audience area position the screen at a comfortable viewing level in a room with a have difficulty seeing the full width of the projected image. high ceiling. • Height—Use the following formulas for calculating screen height for • Projection Format—Once you have determined the correct size of maximum legibility. For 4:3 moving video and entertainment, screen screen for the audience area, that size may be modified height should be at least 1/6 the distance from the screen to the based upon the type(s) of projection equipment to be used.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Wire Motorized Projection Screens Cinemasource , 18 Denbow Rd., Durham, NH 03824
    How To Wire Motorized Projection Screens CinemaSource , 18 Denbow Rd., Durham, NH 03824 www.cinemasource.com CinemaSource Technical Bulletins. Copyright 2002 by CinemaSource, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this bulletin may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission, except in brief quotations embodied in critical reviews. CinemaSource is a registered federal trademark. For information contact: The CinemaSource Press, 18 Denbow Rd. Durham, NH 03824 How to Wire Motorized Projection Screens Motorized Screen Wiring • Using up/down wall switches ----------------------------------------------------- Page5 • Screen control using relays ------------------------------------------------------- Page 6 • IR wireless screen control --------------------------------------------------------- Page 8 • RF wireless screen control -------------------------------------------------------- Page 9 • Screen control via current sensing devices ----------------------------------- Page 10 • X-10 screen control ------------------------------------------------------------------ Page 12 Glossary • A collection of projection screen-related terminology ----------------------- Page 14 SCREEN MANUFACTURERS PROFILED IN THIS GUIDE: DA-LITE SCREEN, 3100 North Detroit St., Warsaw, IN 46581 800-622-3737, www.da-lite.com DRAPER, 411 S. Pearl St., Spiceland, IN 47385 800-238-7999, www.draperinc.com VUTEC Corporation, 5900 Stirling Road, Hollywood, FL 33021 800-770-4700, www.vutec.com STEWART FILMSCREEN,
    [Show full text]
  • Display's the Thing: the Real Stakes in the Conflict Over High Resolution Displays
    Display's the Thing: The Real Stakes in the Conflict Over High Resolution Displays Jeffrey Hart and Michael Borrus (c) Copyright Hart and Borrus 1992 I. Display's the Thing: The Real Stakes In the Conflict Over High- Resolution Displays In Akira Kurasawa's film _Rashomon_, several witnesses to a murder tell the story of what they saw. Despite viewing the same event, the witnesses' stories are radically different, so much so that the event itself is ultimately called into question. So has it been with the debate over the next generation of high- resolution video technology. Some look and see a bigger and better television set (high-definition television or HDTV), but usually dismiss what they see as economically (though perhaps not politically) insignificant.1 Others look and see a significant component technology (high-resolution displays or HRD) beginning to pervade a wide variety of electronic systems. They recognize in displays a technological kinship to silicon chips -- an industry with potential strategic significance for commercial and military applications. But the conflict of perspectives should not, as it did in _Rashomon_, cast doubt on the event. The high-resolution display industry is a symbol of a major transformation underway in electronics: that is, the emergence of new component, machinery, and materials technologies driven by commercial, high-volume, integrated micro-systems applications and controlled increasingly by a few integrated producers located outside the United States. This paper argues that the industrial and geographic concentration of the sourcing, development, production, and integration of electronics technologies and systems in Asia portends new patterns of industrial constraint and opportunity, with significant economic and military implications.
    [Show full text]
  • FOCUS Mini Video Projector
    Quick Start Guide AKASO FOCUS Mini Video Projector V1.3 CONTENTS English 01 - 13 Español 14 - 26 日本語 27 - 39 English PROJECTOR BUTTONS & FUNCTIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 Focusing Wheel 8 Power Bank Mode 2 Return 9 DC 3 Forward 10 USB 4 Backward 11 HDMI 5 OK 12 Earphone 6 Projection Mode 13 Memory Card Port 7 Power Button Note: When in the EZWire/EZCast/HDMI interface, the button function is changed. Forward: Change to volume + Backward: Change to volume - 1 INFRARED REMOTE CONTROL On/Off Mute EZCast Operation No Function HDMI Operation Directions OK Menu Return Home Vol +/- Note: When using the IR remote control, you should aim at the projector rather than screen. POWER ON/OFF 1. Pull the power button to the left and hold it for about four seconds until the green indicator on the projector bottom is lit up, then the projector starts to work. 2. Turn the power button to the left again and hold it for about two seconds to shut down the projector. 3. Turn the power button to the right to lock the button, then the projector can be used as a power bank. 2 POWER BANK MODE AND CHARGING METHOD 1. When the projector is in power bank mode/ projection mode, the projector can charge other devices via USB port. 2. In order to improve charging efficiency, please charge the projector with the original power adapter in power bank mode. 3. The number of indicators represent remaining capacity of battery.
    [Show full text]
  • Staging Success: Toward a New Performance Model for Live-Event Projection
    Photo by Gabor Ekecs Staging Success: Toward a New Performance Model for Live-Event Projection PRESENTED BY IN COLLABORATION WITH As the solid-state revolution in video projection powers on, sophisticated stagers know that all laser projectors are not created equal, and they’re demanding features that deliver not just better total cost of ownership (TCO) but also better imaging, rigging, and video processing performance. INTRODUCTION The best video projectors for live-event staging combine unique light engine and image-processing advances with advanced setup, rigging, and other features that make the staging professional’s job easier and more profitable. But when choosing the right projector for staging and live-event applications, professionals need to carefully compare feature sets and performance criteria. The rental and staging professional should seek out key advanced features—features that are being implemented by the most successful professionals in the field today. This white paper examines those image-quality, motion-processing, rigging, cooling, maintenance, and TCO best practices and features that separate the leaders from the followers among the projector manufacturers serving the live-event staging community. At the Olympic Games Rio 2016 Opening Ceremony, aspects of Brazilian culture and heritage were enhanced with spectacular large- scale mapped visuals carefully programmed and projected from four directions using the PT- RZ31K SOLID SHINE Laser projector and about 110 Panasonic PT-DZ21K2 projectors. Marco Balich, Olympic Ceremonies Executive Producer remarked: “We are very pleased that Panasonic partnered with us in delivering what I consider the best projection ever in an Olympic ceremony.” Stereoscopic floor and screen projection defined the Olympic Games Rio 2016 Opening Ceremony.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation of Holographic View in Mobile Video Calls
    Volume 2, Issue 10, October 2012 ISSN: 2277 128X International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering Research Paper Available online at: www.ijarcsse.com Implementation of Holographic View in Mobile Video Calls * Vignesh.M , SaravanaJothi.M, Computer science and engineering, Computer science and engineering, Anna University, Chennai. Anna University, Chennai. Abstract--- Implementation of holographic video calls in mobile devices using of hologram projectors additional to TFT displays. Here we use hologram projectors for video calls by storing video as holographic images through the method of Computer Generated Holography. Problem statement: Hologram video calls are not in usage, they are simply under research condition. Hologram makes video calls in 3D virtual display. In order to bring hologram usage in mobile phones by means of hologram projectors in the way of computer generated holography. Approach: Computer Generated Holography (CGH) is the method of digitally generating holographic interference patterns. A holographic image can be generated e.g. by digitally computing a holographic interference pattern and printing it onto a mask or film for subsequent illumination by suitable coherent light source. Alternatively, the holographic image can be brought to life by a holographic 3D display (a display which operates on the basis of interference of coherent light), bypassing the need of having to fabricate a "hardcopy" of the holographic interference pattern each time. Consequently, in recent times the term "computer generated holography" is increasingly being used to denote the whole process chain of synthetically preparing holographic light wave fronts suitable for observation. Holographic computer displays for a wide range of applications from CAD to gaming, holographic video and TV programs, automotive and communication applications (cell phone displays) and many more.
    [Show full text]
  • State-Of-The-Art in Holography and Auto-Stereoscopic Displays
    State-of-the-art in holography and auto-stereoscopic displays Daniel Jönsson <Ersätt med egen bild> 2019-05-13 Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Auto-stereoscopic displays ........................................................................................................................... 5 Two-View Autostereoscopic Displays ....................................................................................................... 5 Multi-view Autostereoscopic Displays ...................................................................................................... 7 Light Field Displays .................................................................................................................................. 10 Market ......................................................................................................................................................... 14 Display panels ......................................................................................................................................... 14 AR ............................................................................................................................................................ 14 Application Fields ........................................................................................................................................ 15 Companies .................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey on 3D Video Calling: Implementation of Holographic Video Calls
    International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science and Management 831 Volume-1, Issue-12, December-2018 www.ijresm.com | ISSN (Online): 2581-5792 A Survey on 3D Video Calling: Implementation of Holographic Video Calls Pratul Das1, Arjun Singh2, Shubham Gupta3, Juhi Agarwal4 1,2,3Student, Dept. of Computer Science Engineering, Babu Banarsi Das Inst. of Technology, Ghaziabad, India 4Assistant Professor, Dept. of Computer Science Engg., Babu Banarsi Das Inst. of Technology, Ghaziabad, India Abstract: Implementation of holographic video calls in mobile 2. Materials and methods devices using of hologram projectors further to TFT displays. Here we tend to use hologram projectors for video calls by storing A. Computer generated holography (CGH) video as holographic pictures through the technique of computer Computer Generated holography (CGH) is that the device Generated holography. Downside statement: hologram methodology of digitally generating holographic interference video calls aren't in usage they’re merely in research condition. patterns. A holographic image are often generated e.g. by Hologram makes Video Calls in 3D virtual screen. So as to bring hologram usage in mobile phones by suggests that of hologram digitally computing a holographic interference pattern and projectors within the manner of computer device generated printing it onto a mask or film for resulting illumination by holography. A holographic image will be generated e.g. by digitally appropriate coherent source of illumination. Instead, the computing a holographic interference pattern and printing it onto holographic image are often brought to life by a holographic 3D a mask or film for subsequent illumination by appropriate display (a display that operates on the idea of interference of coherent source of illumination.
    [Show full text]
  • Screen Genealogies Screen Genealogies Mediamatters
    media Screen Genealogies matters From Optical Device to Environmental Medium edited by craig buckley, Amsterdam University rüdiger campe, Press francesco casetti Screen Genealogies MediaMatters MediaMatters is an international book series published by Amsterdam University Press on current debates about media technology and its extended practices (cultural, social, political, spatial, aesthetic, artistic). The series focuses on critical analysis and theory, exploring the entanglements of materiality and performativity in ‘old’ and ‘new’ media and seeks contributions that engage with today’s (digital) media culture. For more information about the series see: www.aup.nl Screen Genealogies From Optical Device to Environmental Medium Edited by Craig Buckley, Rüdiger Campe, and Francesco Casetti Amsterdam University Press The publication of this book is made possible by award from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and from Yale University’s Frederick W. Hilles Fund. Cover illustration: Thomas Wilfred, Opus 161 (1966). Digital still image of an analog time- based Lumia work. Photo: Rebecca Vera-Martinez. Carol and Eugene Epstein Collection. Cover design: Suzan Beijer Lay-out: Crius Group, Hulshout isbn 978 94 6372 900 0 e-isbn 978 90 4854 395 3 doi 10.5117/9789463729000 nur 670 Creative Commons License CC BY NC ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0) All authors / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2019 Some rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, any part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise). Every effort has been made to obtain permission to use all copyrighted illustrations reproduced in this book.
    [Show full text]
  • Society for Information Display by Palisades Convention Management, 411 Lafayette Street, 2Nd Floor, New York, NY 10003; Leonard H
    2008 DISPLAY WEEK / DISPLAY OF THE YEAR AWARDS ISSUE More Energyenergy efficient.Efficient. May/June 2008 Vol. 24, Nos. 5 & 6 INFORMATION DISPLAY INFORMATION SID Official Monthly Publication of the Society for Information Display • www.informationdisplay.org MAY/JUNE 2008 MAY/JUNE THE BEST OF 2007 SID ’08 SHOW ISSUE ● Display of the Year Awards ● Products on Display at Display Week 2008 ● Glass Substrates for LCD TV ● History of Projection Display Technology (Part 1) vikuiti.com ● 1-800-553-9215 The difference is amazing. 3 Journal of the SID May Preview © 3M 2008 See Us at SID ’08 Booth 307 See Us at SID ’08 Booth 329 MAY/JUNE 2008 Information VOL. 24, NOS. 5&6 DISPLAY COVER: The 2008 Display of the Year Awards honor the best display products of 2007 with outstanding features, novel and outstanding display 2 Editorial applications, and novel components that significantly Welcome to LA! enhance the performance of displays. See page 16 Stephen P. Atwood for the details 4 Industry News Werner Haas, LCD Pioneer at Xerox, Dies at Age 79. 6 President’s Corner Are You Hungry? THE BEST OF Paul Drzaic 2007 8 The Business of Displays OLED Displays on the Verge of Commercial Breakthrough? Robert Jan Visser 16 2008 Display of the Year Award Winners Show the Future is Now From the commercialization of OLED displays to the rebirth of 3-D cinema, CREDIT: Clockwise from top left: FUJIFILM, Samsung SDI, Ltd., Luminus Devices, the best display products of 2007 point to the realization of many years of Sony Corp., Apple, and RealD.
    [Show full text]
  • Display Technologies in Japan
    NASA-CR-198566 Japanese Technology Evaluation Center JTEC JTEC Panel Report on Display Technologies In Japan Lawrence E. Tannas, Jr., Co-chair William E. Glenn, Co-chair Thomas Credelle J. William Doane Arthur H. Firester Malcolm Thompson June 1992 (NASA-CR-198564) JTEC PANEL ON N95-27863 DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES IN JAPAN Final Report (Loyola Coil.) 295 p Unclas G3/35 0049776 Coordinated by Loyola College in Maryland 4501 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland 21210-2699 LOYOLA ('()_E ,IN MARYLAND JAP_ TECHNOI_)OY IFv'ALUATION CENTER SPONSOR The Japanese Technology Evaluation Center (JTEC) is operated for the Federal Government to provide assessments of Japanese research and development (R&D) in selected technologies. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the lead support agency. Paul Herer, Senior Advisor for Planning and Technology Evaluation, is NSF Program Director for the project. Other sponsors of JTEC include the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Commerce (DOC), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the U.S. Air Force. JTEC assessments contribute to more balanced technology transfer between Japan and the United States. The Japanese excel at acquisition and perfection of foreign technologies, whereas the U.S. has relatively little experience with this process. As the Japanese become leaders in research in targeted technologies, it is essential that the United States have access to the results. JTEC provides the important first step in this process by alerting U.S. researchers to Japanese accomplishments. JTEC findings can also be helpful in formulating governmental research and trade policies.
    [Show full text]