fiber obptic video transmittion directly

ok hear me out
what if you glued a bunch of raw fiber optic cables together in a matrix and then glued that to a tv?
now lets just assume that the cables are however long you need them. you could transmit video output directly across some distance without latency or needing to encode or decode an image, yes?
obviously just using fiber opitic cables to send data or just use hdmi is the saner solution.
but im more interested if picrel would work in theory??
granted you wouldn't likely get a 1:1 ratio of input image to output image, the fibers are probably bigger than your pixels
but it would be cool to see

has it been done befor?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    have you ever heard of a fibre optic HDMI cable

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      fiber optic hdmi cables always have transceivers on either end. the hdmi port itself doesn't understand blinky laster diode.

      https://i.imgur.com/vyGL6R5.png

      ok hear me out
      what if you glued a bunch of raw fiber optic cables together in a matrix and then glued that to a tv?
      now lets just assume that the cables are however long you need them. you could transmit video output directly across some distance without latency or needing to encode or decode an image, yes?
      obviously just using fiber opitic cables to send data or just use hdmi is the saner solution.
      but im more interested if picrel would work in theory??
      granted you wouldn't likely get a 1:1 ratio of input image to output image, the fibers are probably bigger than your pixels
      but it would be cool to see

      has it been done befor?

      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10057-8.pdf
      yes. though that's a very good waste of a fiber optic cable. video en/decoding technology has gotten to the point where shoving images 30 times a second down any given medium is completely impractical.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >fiber optic hdmi cables always have transceivers on either end. the hdmi port itself doesn't understand blinky laster diode.
        are they high latency?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          they are quite low latency if you get good ones

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            but for 1 million cores you end up with a full blown display as tx. electrical seems doable similar to what humans have as nerves, and the tech will be useful later

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Depends on the smarts between them. Though a lot of them seem to advertise zero latency.

          >video en/decoding technology has gotten to the point where shoving images 30 times a second down any given medium is completely impractical.
          see [...]
          "having fun is impractical"

          Paper linked actually lists several practical applications where such a thing is actually needed.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >video en/decoding technology has gotten to the point where shoving images 30 times a second down any given medium is completely impractical.
        see

        right, this isnt meant to be a practical application.
        more like a weird art experiment, or some kind of sculpture.
        think like those fiber optic toys
        like imagine the ends aren't glued together and you can split the "pixels" apart. and when you squeeze them together you can sort of see the video coming through, but also you can twist it and deform it just for fun

        using tv was just an example. would be more economical with a phone or tablet or smaller screen.

        "having fun is impractical"

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yes its possible and is done on some very small scales

      hdmi doesnt encode/decode raw pixels? read the op

      ignoring how moronic the idea is considering the cost of all the fibee cables thin and coated enough

      thats what toslink is doing so yes you could do that over small distances, but if you go too far you’ll encounter internal reflection problems that I guess would look like ghosting in this setup

      toslink doesnt encode/decode raw signal? its not even video. read the op
      >ghosting
      use single mode fibre

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ignoring how moronic the idea is considering the cost of all the fibee cables thin and coated enough

    thats what toslink is doing so yes you could do that over small distances, but if you go too far you’ll encounter internal reflection problems that I guess would look like ghosting in this setup

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      right, this isnt meant to be a practical application.
      more like a weird art experiment, or some kind of sculpture.
      think like those fiber optic toys
      like imagine the ends aren't glued together and you can split the "pixels" apart. and when you squeeze them together you can sort of see the video coming through, but also you can twist it and deform it just for fun

      using tv was just an example. would be more economical with a phone or tablet or smaller screen.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        ignoring how moronic the idea is considering the cost of all the fibee cables thin and coated enough

        thats what toslink is doing so yes you could do that over small distances, but if you go too far you’ll encounter internal reflection problems that I guess would look like ghosting in this setup

        are you gunpei yokoi back from the dead?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >gunpei
          is this a project gunpei worked on or something?? im not familiar with his work outside of the gameboy and stuff

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ?feature=shared&t=770

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That would make a sick art exhibition, you could use it to warp pictures of things by bending the cables, probably with a computerised system of some kind.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I mean sure but youre gonna want a big tv at a small resolution so that you can reasonably attach the fiber to each pixel area and youd have to make sure you have a good way to fix the fiber lines with i guess an adhesive that wont disperse the light

        a clump of unshielded fishing line that those toys use (and toslink) would just get you rainbow colors on the other end

        like for example a 65 inch 1080p is 34 pixels per inch which means youd need to fit and support 34 fiber lines in that one inch space, so your fiber for one pixel already needs to be less than 1mm thin

        [...]
        are you gunpei yokoi back from the dead?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ye the signal would clearly degrade with distance. it could be used with many parallel lines and do heavy lifting computer side. but pretty complicated pulling it off. you need some optic nerve cable thing

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >without latency
    latrncy requires an input, so even if you had "no latency" in the video, the user would never know because any device connected would

    also this is the most moronic post i've seen here in a whike, have a nice day Black person

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So we have ethernet cables.
    And we have wi-fi which is wireless ethernet.
    And we have Fiber optic cables.

    What if we invented Wireless Fiber Optic cables? We could call it Fi-fi

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >wireless transmission of light into an optic cable
      thats just called having eyes

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you still send ethernet down fibre optic
      "ethernet cables" are usually UTP cat x with rj45 plugs, but ethernet can go through a variety of mediums like UTP, fibre optics and radio (wifi)
      wireless fibre optic is just a laser like how wireless UTP is lightning

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You certainly can use visible light with no fiber optic cable to transmit data; newer Starlink satellites have lasers that are used for satellite to satellite communication, for example.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I mean this sounds just like how tv used to work....

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i fricking love bbc

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Endoscopes use this for cameras, but they're very expensive. A 1080p display would require 2073600 fiber strands to pull this off. Just 1m of distance would require 2km of fiber.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's assuming full fidelity of a 1080p display capturing every single pixel. But even in the OP pic the fibers are shown to be a bit thicker. Probably each fiber tube would represent an average of say 10 square pixels or so, depending on how they're clustered.
      Would be interesting to see what kind of "image" would come out the other end.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Actually I'm moronic, endoscopes only use fiber for the light source.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The worlds first IRL orthrographic projector

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    light amplifiers work in similar ways

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It still would have delay because the speed of light in a fiber is much lower than the speed of light in a vacuum or in air. The fastest way would be to have a 2d array of lasers, each of which is stimulated by each pixel in the original image, and send that bundle of laser rays through a vacuum channel, using mirrors as necessary to change the path of the light, and project the bundle on a semi-transparent surface on the other end of the vacuum channel.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      for display purposes would you get anything extra (practically speaking) as compared to electric signal?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Suppose that through a wire you can send a digital signal of 2GHz bit rate.
        The time between each 60Hz frame is 16ms (1000ms/60). Let's define "non percievable latency" as half the time to render a frame, so 8ms.
        Let's calculate how much data you can send through the wire.
        2 GHz is 2 Gbits per second.
        So by a rule of three:
        1000ms 2 Gbit
        8ms 0.016 Gbit
        0.016 Gbit is 16Mbit, which is 2MB, so you can push 2MB per wire in half the time it takes to render a frame at 60fps.
        An uncompressed 1920*1080 image at 8 bits per channel is 1920*1080*8*3 = 49MB. So you would need 25 wires to send uncompressed 1080p 60fps at GHz.
        Alternatively you can compress the image (but then you have to add processing time to the overall time to push a frame), use a higher clock rate or some modulation scheme other than a pure on-off digital signal, lower resolution image, use a (single) optical fiber instead of copper, etc.
        Generally the latency will be lower the higher the bandwidth, because you can push a complete image in a shorter amount of time.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I was thinking about parallel lines, one for each pixel. like a frick-ton of them. would optic do anything extra in that situation? removing the whole electric to optic and optic to electric conversions.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            if you completely replace all tv infrastructure with just fibre optics?
            if you keep it entirely analog then you have potential positives of stuff like, colour depth is basically infinite? well not constrained by encoding anyway. and the color reproduction is going to be pretty accurate too. other stuff like frame rate could go through the roof, but resolution would be bound by fibre count.
            electricity costs? not sure
            well the downsides would be how would you broadcast/switch it? it could only go to one place.
            and no sound.
            also how do you change the channel? you only have one channel per fibre set.
            an alternative you might consider is put the tv studio on a big tower and give everyone a powerful telescope.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            sound is simple with a single fiber

            toslink can do 24/96 reliably and some of them can do 24/192

            you control channels from the PC whatever device controls it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To a human observer? No.
            If you are measuring the delay using an oscilloscope? Yes, as long as the length of the fiber bundle is short enough that propagation time is insignificant to encoding time when using an electronic solution as opposed to optical.
            But light in a vacuum can travel 300km in 1ms, so the delay will indeed be lower using a bundle of fibers than using electronics for any practical distance.
            But you will need 2 million fibers for a 1080p signal.
            The other way would be making a custom silicon device that images a square segment of the original image using a ccd, electronically encodes the signal and sends it using a laser diode. How many pixel you scan per device would vary according to what latency you require (the lower the latency needed, the smaller the area scanned per device).
            I guess having a bundle of 2 million fibers would be cheaper if the fibers are thin enough for your application than making custom electro-optical silicon.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >encoding time
            with one channel for each pixel that should be nonexistent?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you are using copper wires, then it still takes some time for the light to change the conduction state of a phototransistor and for the electronics on the other end to turn on the LED. But it will only be measurable using a very expensive high speed oscilloscope.
            If you use a fiber, then sure, there's no encoding delay.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            so theoretically how thin can a fiber be made? let alone interfacing a million of them
            an axon is some 1um wide, so a million of them side by side would have a length of one meter. but bunched together they should result in regular cable width or something.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I found a page that says 10um is a common value. So theoretically you could fit a 1080p image in a bundle about 2cm thick.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            interfacing that might seem like a b***h but if the bunch of them are very precisely assembled you could match them just by rotating. but you need low tolerances

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      and all of this, off course, to get 1230231023fps in lol

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    toslink can do 24/96 reliably and some of them can do 24/192

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *