/tech/ - Technology

Brought to you by archive.org (again)

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images


(4.98 MB 800x608 75367242737363.gif)
Imagining a future for vectors Anonymous 04/11/2018 (Wed) 16:50:52 [Preview] No. 12598
I have some hope that there could be a return to restart developing computing for vector graphics. It seems a bit counterintuitive how kids these days got 30 years of raster display tech development only to complain that VR doesn't work because they can still see the pixels in anything under a gorillion-k displays.

Perhaps in the future a mobile device could project laser-based optically scalable graphics on any wall, while a secondary monitor may simulate it in rasters when needed, but I'm more interested in how we can possibly get there from the current state of the industry where raster screens are so ubiquitous. Can anything as mildly dangerous as early CRTs even legally make it into the market this day and age? Can a dedicated vector graphics card survive the russian scalpers, if such a device is even possible without it's own OS?


Anonymous 04/11/2018 (Wed) 17:02:30 [Preview] No.12599 del
before I forget I'll also make a note to consider the topic with e-ink displays in mind

those are of course decidedly raster-based as well, but it's an interesting technology


Anonymous 04/11/2018 (Wed) 19:29:14 [Preview] No.12600 del
>>12598
>Perhaps in the future a mobile device could project laser-based optically scalable graphics on any wall, while a secondary monitor may simulate it in rasters when needed, but I'm more interested in how we can possibly get there from the current state of the industry where raster screens are so ubiquitous.
That will be possible but at that point what's the point in not going for holographics.

You can see in your gif the possibility to skip monitors altogether and move to visor screens, like Google Glass. This would require new peripherals to replace things like the keyboard and mouse, as well as new operating systems paradigms ad technologies to replace things like X Windows System.
As for how we get there, I think it requires either entirely new operating systems, or a complete reworking of one of the freely available ones that already exist. However, I don't think anyone has either the incentive to develop such a system nor to switch to it given their alternatives. Why bother trying to switch to something better?

>Can anything as mildly dangerous as early CRTs even legally make it into the market this day and age?
Going backwards in technology is not an option.


Anonymous 04/12/2018 (Thu) 07:50:39 [Preview] No.12601 del
Even if it's vector they would still see the pixels, because all the technology was build in this concept, a matrix of square dots. We would need to rebuild the display tech to fit the "meta-model" of vector graphics first and I have no idea how we could do that. Maybe holographic, as the other anon said, but that's too futuristic for our primitive society. Also, holographics would have density issues, as external light would not offer enough contrast for the human vision.
Maybe look into bioengeneering would be better, like a brain-computer interface that can send signals to human optics or something.
Again, too futuristic, and there's no research investiments enough for that. Maybe there's some guys on Cambridge, Berkeley or Stanford, for meh, not really.


Anonymous 04/12/2018 (Thu) 18:12:44 [Preview] No.12603 del
>Going backwards in technology is not an option.
>too futuristic
I'm happy to see "too big to fail" ideology coming from the consumer rather than the government, it only shows that culture is being cohesive and bailouts have the blessing of the public. Going by the success of 3DS and Shovel Knight, some of those allegations are patently false, however. The amount of fun is clearly scalable to the reach of the production, while lowering prices are much more heavily influenced by increasing the reach to secondary and tertiary markets. To put it short, first people to buy Shovel Knight were happy to pay $100 in Kickstarter, the second people $20 in early adoption and now $30 on Nintendo Switch. Calling this "unaccepatble" is clearly ideological and false in real world terms.

A game as much fun as Shovel Knight is produceable in primitive technology that resembles the early Vectrex, with the addition of modern computing power. On the other hand, such a device is liable to crash and burn as well like the Virtual Boy. These are however mere indicators and not gospel. A viable new vector technology would need a few bottom lines fulfilled, one is to be able to mimic raster graphics in an inferior way the same way raster graphics are able to mimic vectors in an inferior way, where they get pixelated but are not unuseable. One other is to support an universal standard of vectorization so that any method of greating a vector algorithm is transferable directly into the device without going through the process of re-encoding the same collection of shapes in a different way to no further benefit.

I do not imagine to pointlessly throw out raster graphics just to accommodate vectors. What would need to happen is to introduce another element of interface next to raster visuals and audio, which are already succesfully merged into one experience, so we can enjoy an effective use of vectors, rasters and audio. This is not an unforeseen concept, as Apple did introduce a touch interface even though we already have a good touch interface in mouse and keyboard, and Wii was succesfully sold on motion controls despite being clearly inferior to the single-plane motion control found on the mouse.


Anonymous 04/12/2018 (Thu) 18:32:08 [Preview] No.12604 del
While it's important to first discover a viabilty for pure vector displays, or else well never get to the point where the following is possible, I imagine there comes a point where a screen monitor can display both vector graphics and raster graphics. How I imagine this to work is that there should be a layer of screen that can produce rasters, and onto that a vectorized line can be projected, from a board that is flat but can mimic tubular monitors. Similar technology already exists where touch screens can receive input in analog shapes and digitize it in raster form. Also rasters in see-through materials already exist in a primitive form, that's another thing that is absolutely a step "backwards" yet plenty of hard money sees potential in it.

The way I imagine it it might be something that recognizes which colors are intended as lines and which are intended as solid colors, and the graphics controller chip within the monitor itself would know what lines to produce in scalable rasters while the rest of the colors would get as pixelated as the definition allows, but perhaps be written over by any vector lines drawn over the jagged edges. It's highly hypothetical until the early forms of flat vector displays exist to start indicating what direction the technology can possibly go to, depending on the exact workings.

What exists now is at least QR codes, which can mimic vector equations if being put up to task. I can hardly imagine a QR code reader doing 10 000 calculations every second, though, if they were to perform the task of a vector display controller chip.


Anonymous 04/13/2018 (Fri) 00:50:38 [Preview] No.12606 del
>>12603
I don't quite get how your Shovel Knight example ties into the ideas of your first paragraph. Are you accusing us of preferring the status quo; are you suggesting that older technology actually does have a place in the contemporary world, and that it is not true that the only direction possible to go in is strictly forward? I'm having trouble understanding your post, but don't feel obliged to spell it out.

>>12604
I would have an easier time getting it if you had an illustration/diagram of what you're talking about.


Anonymous 04/13/2018 (Fri) 02:09:19 [Preview] No.12609 del
>>12606
Probably a bot, I don't know. I don't understand what he's writing too.



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply