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?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
have you ever heard of a fibre optic HDMI cable
fiber optic hdmi cables always have transceivers on either end. the hdmi port itself doesn't understand blinky laster diode.
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.
>fiber optic hdmi cables always have transceivers on either end. the hdmi port itself doesn't understand blinky laster diode.
are they high latency?
they are quite low latency if you get good ones
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
Depends on the smarts between them. Though a lot of them seem to advertise zero latency.
Paper linked actually lists several practical applications where such a thing is actually needed.
>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"
yes its possible and is done on some very small scales
hdmi doesnt encode/decode raw pixels? read the op
toslink doesnt encode/decode raw signal? its not even video. read the op
>ghosting
use single mode fibre
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
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.
are you gunpei yokoi back from the dead?
>gunpei
is this a project gunpei worked on or something?? im not familiar with his work outside of the gameboy and stuff
?feature=shared&t=770
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.
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
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
>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
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
>wireless transmission of light into an optic cable
thats just called having eyes
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
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.
I mean this sounds just like how tv used to work....
i fricking love bbc
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.
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.
Actually I'm moronic, endoscopes only use fiber for the light source.
The worlds first IRL orthrographic projector
light amplifiers work in similar ways
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.
for display purposes would you get anything extra (practically speaking) as compared to electric signal?
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.
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.
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.
sound is simple with a single fiber
you control channels from the PC whatever device controls it.
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.
>encoding time
with one channel for each pixel that should be nonexistent?
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.
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.
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.
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
and all of this, off course, to get 1230231023fps in lol
toslink can do 24/96 reliably and some of them can do 24/192