Selective Light Conducting Material
-
Paul Watson wrote: My idea was that light sensitive material which some glasses use. Even better would be something like those auto-darkening welding masks, since they react more quickly. But as Ray mentioned, you'd still need a way to track the driver's head, else the whole thing would go dark...
- Shog9 -
Fat and soft, pink and weak / Foot and thigh, tongue and cheek You know I'm told they swallow you whole / Skin and bone. - Queens of the Stone Age, Mosquito Song
This could be done a few ways… 1- A device that attaches to an existing pair of glasses (on each temple) that would allow the head location and rotation to be tracked in the car. 2- Use a standard assumption that the drivers head will be located directly in front of the head rest so use that as a calibration point then track the cars location to the sun to get the horizontal location to the drivers perspective. 3- A small CCD camera with edge detection software to 'see' the location and orientation of the drivers face. 4- Allow the driver to move the dot around on the window with their finger. Some type of drag and drop touch screen. Shhhhhh, listen.. did anyone hear that click? I think the SCI (Sunshade Consortium Illuminati) have tapped my phone
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall." George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
-
I hope I can explain what I am looking for, as should you (hope that is.) I need a piece of transparent material that can be gradually made opaque but not as a whole, rather individual segments of the material. So I can say upper left corner go 50% opaque, a circular middle section go 75% and the rest be transparent. It involves obviously some controller unit to tell the material where to opaque and where to remain transparent. The segments need to be quite small as well, able to define fine graded edges and not be visible to the naked eye up close. Is there such a material? I was thinking something like what LCD screens are made of, but I have no idea wether those let light through or that they consist of billions of light emitting segments, which is not what I would need. Also the least amount of light loss through the transparent sections the better. i.e. 100% transparent. Though this is not critical. I know there are plenty of engineers on CP so I reckon someone must have an idea of what I am looking for. Thanks chaps :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er Shog9: Paul "The human happy pill" Watson
I'm not sure if glass containing silver bromide will do it, but I think it might. I'm not an expert on this, and you will have to find out more yourself, but if it does work, it might be the simplest and least expensive option.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother Teresa -
This could be done a few ways… 1- A device that attaches to an existing pair of glasses (on each temple) that would allow the head location and rotation to be tracked in the car. 2- Use a standard assumption that the drivers head will be located directly in front of the head rest so use that as a calibration point then track the cars location to the sun to get the horizontal location to the drivers perspective. 3- A small CCD camera with edge detection software to 'see' the location and orientation of the drivers face. 4- Allow the driver to move the dot around on the window with their finger. Some type of drag and drop touch screen. Shhhhhh, listen.. did anyone hear that click? I think the SCI (Sunshade Consortium Illuminati) have tapped my phone
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall." George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
Ray Cassick wrote: This could be done a few ways… 5- They already have eye tracking technology in research cars. Used for commands (look at radio, turn louder two blinks, turn softer three blinks :-D ) and for checking if the driver is getting drowsy. I think they use infrared or frikkin "l a s e r" beams, or something. You could get the output from that device and re-use it for the sunshade. Ray Cassick wrote: I think the SCI (Sunshade Consortium Illuminati) have tapped my phone SCI! LOL :laugh: The last thing you will know is a slight darkening around your eyes and then WHAM, they stick horn rimmed, tortoise shelled sunshades on you. Nobody will ever take you seriously again and the SCI will not have to worry about you anymore. It is sad, they got a whole generation in the 80s with those awful degrading shades. :-D
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er Shog9: Paul "The human happy pill" Watson
-
Anonymous wrote: I figured it was something like that. I am very transparent *groan* Anonymous wrote: Paul, you have to start developing your own film. You have all kinds of control when you're the one exposing the photo paper. I did a bit of fiddling with stuff like that back in university. Dodging and burning - just like Photoshop. I know, I know. That will come for sure. I am shooting B&W (Ilford) at the moment. First I want to get a bit more confident with exposure control, then I am going to venture into chemicals and darkroom magic. Photoshop is grand but there are things it cannot do which can be done in the darkroom. I even want to give the Zone system a serious bash, which means my own darkroom. However an "active" ND grad filter would be a kiff thing. Once the film has recorded a scene there is only so much playing you can do; so much dodging, burning etc. Eventually you run into the fact that the film simply did not record any light in that one area, or recorded so much that it blocked up. With a filter like that though you get to make sure the light falling on the film is within those unplayable limits, then you are free in the darkroom to do all sorts with that base information at your fingertips. Anonymous wrote: Of course if you want fancy tech-toys, I have no solutions for you. I think there is an incredible opportunity for a synergy of digital and analog in the photographic world. For instance a simple example; Why the hell are us film photographers still looking through analog viewfinders? It is patently obvious that a digital sensor in front of the film plane (instead of the normal prism) feeding to a LCD on the back of the camera and into the viewfinder would be a fantastic idea. Then you get all the cool tech that comes with a digital sensor, but the quality and wonder of film for the final recording. Expensive at first, but then all of these ideas are expensive at first and then work their way down. There are numerous other areas where film cameras can benefit from digital technology without going anywhere near the film plane. I don't want any digital tech touching my film, but it sure would help getting the right light to fall onto the film :)
Paul Watson
Hi Mighty Mouse! (I figured I'd reply to a non-anonymous post so I can be guaranteed of inflicting my false knowledge on you). No, you are right. I certainly would not want what passes for the screens of current digital cameras as a replacement for my viewfinder. But there must be better technology out there than LCD for small displays, right? Great conversation! I love topics like this. No, there really isn't anything better. Everything is quantized/pixelized. Even your eye pixelizes. The great thing about the human perceptive system is that it automatically fills in the gaps. Ever done those experiments where you "see" your blind spot? Your brain is such an incredible integrative machine, that until we get a direct interface, matching our perceptive ability just isn't going to happen. Did you know that the human eye is actually sensitive enough to sense single photons? (But our perceptive system squashes the noise). The issue of reality vs. perception is really amazing to me. Regarding technology, there's also a power density problem. For things like CRT's, the smaller the pixel, the harder it becomes to pack the power into it to generate the necessary illumination with the phosphorescent material. As for LCD's, that's a lot of transistors already. I'm not sure what the theoretical limit is on a light gate. I think you run into an interesting optical problem too--the smaller the gate, the closer it has to be to the light source to prevent diffusion, and you also need to reduce the non-transmittive portion of the gate, wouldn't you think? Optics is an amazing field. Can you imagine the quality that goes into something like the space telescope? It also amazes me that things like X-rays can be focused like light too. Yes, I know it's like light, but it's still wierd. :-D Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus
Every line of code is a liability - Taka Muraoka
Microsoft deliberately adds arbitrary layers of complexity to make it difficult to deliver Windows features on non-Windows platforms--Microsoft's "Halloween files" -
I hope I can explain what I am looking for, as should you (hope that is.) I need a piece of transparent material that can be gradually made opaque but not as a whole, rather individual segments of the material. So I can say upper left corner go 50% opaque, a circular middle section go 75% and the rest be transparent. It involves obviously some controller unit to tell the material where to opaque and where to remain transparent. The segments need to be quite small as well, able to define fine graded edges and not be visible to the naked eye up close. Is there such a material? I was thinking something like what LCD screens are made of, but I have no idea wether those let light through or that they consist of billions of light emitting segments, which is not what I would need. Also the least amount of light loss through the transparent sections the better. i.e. 100% transparent. Though this is not critical. I know there are plenty of engineers on CP so I reckon someone must have an idea of what I am looking for. Thanks chaps :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er Shog9: Paul "The human happy pill" Watson
I was watching "This Old House" (a TV program in America) and they installed a new bathroom window that was next to the bathtub. The cool part was that the window was made out of a crystalline structure that aligned into a transparent arrangement normally and when an electric current was applied the structure re-aligned to become semi-opaque (really quite foggy). Perhaps the same kind of material divided into cells with varying amounts of electricity would fit the bill? Best link I could find at the moment http://www.laminatedtechnologies.com/html/privacy_films.html[^]
-
Hi Mighty Mouse! (I figured I'd reply to a non-anonymous post so I can be guaranteed of inflicting my false knowledge on you). No, you are right. I certainly would not want what passes for the screens of current digital cameras as a replacement for my viewfinder. But there must be better technology out there than LCD for small displays, right? Great conversation! I love topics like this. No, there really isn't anything better. Everything is quantized/pixelized. Even your eye pixelizes. The great thing about the human perceptive system is that it automatically fills in the gaps. Ever done those experiments where you "see" your blind spot? Your brain is such an incredible integrative machine, that until we get a direct interface, matching our perceptive ability just isn't going to happen. Did you know that the human eye is actually sensitive enough to sense single photons? (But our perceptive system squashes the noise). The issue of reality vs. perception is really amazing to me. Regarding technology, there's also a power density problem. For things like CRT's, the smaller the pixel, the harder it becomes to pack the power into it to generate the necessary illumination with the phosphorescent material. As for LCD's, that's a lot of transistors already. I'm not sure what the theoretical limit is on a light gate. I think you run into an interesting optical problem too--the smaller the gate, the closer it has to be to the light source to prevent diffusion, and you also need to reduce the non-transmittive portion of the gate, wouldn't you think? Optics is an amazing field. Can you imagine the quality that goes into something like the space telescope? It also amazes me that things like X-rays can be focused like light too. Yes, I know it's like light, but it's still wierd. :-D Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus
Every line of code is a liability - Taka Muraoka
Microsoft deliberately adds arbitrary layers of complexity to make it difficult to deliver Windows features on non-Windows platforms--Microsoft's "Halloween files"Marc Clifton wrote: The issue of reality vs. perception is really amazing to me Which is something photographic purists should read over and over again until they realise that even their "straight" photography is a farce. IT world has it's squabbles and debates, but man the photographic community makes us look like rank amateur debaters. Reality vs. Interpretation, Canon vs. Nikon, Manip vs. Straight Off The Film. Then you throw up that people see the same thing differently, and it all goes to hell in a hand basket :) Marc Clifton wrote: Optics is an amazing field. Can you imagine the quality that goes into something like the space telescope? It also amazes me that things like X-rays can be focused like light too. Yes, I know it's like light, but it's still wierd. That whole "x-ray to visible to infrared to radio wave" idea blows me away. We label things so differently when they are really just different states of the same thing. Scary. As for optics, here is a BIG statement from me; Optics, in terms of lenses and understanding how to manipulate light, makes me want to learn some proper math :-D I read the waffle on lenses and then want to get into the more detailed bits and walk into this wall of charts and graphs, numbers and figures. All very interesting but WTF does half of it mean? I have never been a perfectionist or "detailist." Always have liked being a jack of all trades, knowing bits about everything. It works well for my job. But for the first time in my life I have found something that I really want to perfect, to get into the heart of and truly understand. Quite thought provoking stuff for me :) I had better go, security guard is locking up. Will talk more about optics tomorrow, you seem to know your business :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er Shog9: Paul "The human happy pill" Watson
-
I hope I can explain what I am looking for, as should you (hope that is.) I need a piece of transparent material that can be gradually made opaque but not as a whole, rather individual segments of the material. So I can say upper left corner go 50% opaque, a circular middle section go 75% and the rest be transparent. It involves obviously some controller unit to tell the material where to opaque and where to remain transparent. The segments need to be quite small as well, able to define fine graded edges and not be visible to the naked eye up close. Is there such a material? I was thinking something like what LCD screens are made of, but I have no idea wether those let light through or that they consist of billions of light emitting segments, which is not what I would need. Also the least amount of light loss through the transparent sections the better. i.e. 100% transparent. Though this is not critical. I know there are plenty of engineers on CP so I reckon someone must have an idea of what I am looking for. Thanks chaps :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er Shog9: Paul "The human happy pill" Watson
The contrast ration with LCDs is about 200:1, I don't know if that would be enough for your purposes, and their resolution is about 100dpi on grahpic displays. LCDs work by having a polarising material behind them which limits the contrast ratio. I can't think of any other commercial options and unless you know a mad scientist or two.... Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
Ray Cassick wrote: This could be done a few ways… 5- They already have eye tracking technology in research cars. Used for commands (look at radio, turn louder two blinks, turn softer three blinks :-D ) and for checking if the driver is getting drowsy. I think they use infrared or frikkin "l a s e r" beams, or something. You could get the output from that device and re-use it for the sunshade. Ray Cassick wrote: I think the SCI (Sunshade Consortium Illuminati) have tapped my phone SCI! LOL :laugh: The last thing you will know is a slight darkening around your eyes and then WHAM, they stick horn rimmed, tortoise shelled sunshades on you. Nobody will ever take you seriously again and the SCI will not have to worry about you anymore. It is sad, they got a whole generation in the 80s with those awful degrading shades. :-D
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er Shog9: Paul "The human happy pill" Watson
Paul Watson wrote: It is sad, they got a whole generation in the 80s with those awful degrading shades. Which shades would these be? :confused:
- Shog9 -
Fat and soft, pink and weak / Foot and thigh, tongue and cheek You know I'm told they swallow you whole / Skin and bone. - Queens of the Stone Age, Mosquito Song
-
Stuart van Weele wrote: viewing the filament of a light bulb and the markings on the light bulb at the same time Crumbs, that is good, film could never handle that without an intermediary. Stuart van Weele wrote: You might find a Russian army surplus rig that does this kind of thing. *Paul pops down to his local friendly eastern europe black market... hmmm WMDs, WMDs, tanks, WMDs, APCs, WMDs, more WMDs, aaahh, a logrithmic light sensor, perfect, oh and throw in the AK, thanks.* ;) Thanks Stuart. I left the word "logrithmic" back in my failed math career but will dredge it up to figure out what the heck you mean. :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er Shog9: Paul "The human happy pill" Watson
Paul Watson wrote: *Paul pops down to his local friendly eastern europe black market... hmmm WMDs, WMDs, tanks, WMDs, APCs, WMDs, more WMDs, aaahh, a logrithmic light sensor, perfect, oh and throw in the AK, thanks.* There are plenty of soviet era gas masks, night vision scopes, uniforms, etc, floating around the US. I sometimes go over to http://www.surplusshed.com/[^] to collect more junk equipment.
-
The contrast ration with LCDs is about 200:1, I don't know if that would be enough for your purposes, and their resolution is about 100dpi on grahpic displays. LCDs work by having a polarising material behind them which limits the contrast ratio. I can't think of any other commercial options and unless you know a mad scientist or two.... Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: unless you know a mad scientist or two.... Why did you think I posted my question on CP? :-D Thanks for the reply Elaine, I shall endeavour to figure out what a contrast ratio actually means to the light coming through :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er Shog9: Paul "The human happy pill" Watson