It's certainly cool, but I can't help thinking of 1984. It's awfully scary. I like being able to A) choose not to have a camera hooked up, or B) Just cover up the darned lense. I sure wouldn't want a virus-writer unknowingly accessing my monitor's "looking glass" (more a risk for Windows users, of course, but still). If the feature's there in the monitor, I don't know how such manipulation could really be avoided.

Quote

Mikuro wrote:
It's certainly cool, but I can't help thinking of 1984. It's awfully scary. I like being able to A) choose not to have a camera hooked up, or B) Just cover up the darned lense. I sure wouldn't want a virus-writer unknowingly accessing my monitor's "looking glass" (more a risk for Windows users, of course, but still). If the feature's there in the monitor, I don't know how such manipulation could really be avoided.

I have heard that the little green light by the camera in the iMacs is hard wired in such a way that it HAS to be on for the camera to work. So it would be impossible to hack...it's a hardware thing.

Now, that being said I can imagine a screen like this would be much more complicated and such a device might be impossible on a device like that.

But anyway, I thought I'd put your mind at ease about the current cameras out there at least.

Well, reminds me of three concept pieces by Apple: Parkbench Navigator, Knowledge Navigator and Future Shock, the latter two being discussed here.

Quote

Small White Car wrote:
I have heard that the little green light by the camera in the iMacs is hard wired in such a way that it HAS to be on for the camera to work. So it would be impossible to hack...it's a hardware thing.

Now, that being said I can imagine a screen like this would be much more complicated and such a device might be impossible on a device like that.

But anyway, I thought I'd put your mind at ease about the current cameras out there at least.

Good to know. With the current stuff it's not so much of an issue, because you can just cover the lens or turn it off. I assume there would be some hardware "off" switch on the new thing, too, but...well, obviously the technology isn't made to be kept off all the time. If this technology becomes a vital part of the UI as Mr. Kheit suggests, then it would really have to be on whenever you use your computer. That's what makes it scary.

Quote

Rainy Day wrote:
Well, reminds me of three concept pieces by Apple:.

Wow, the future shock video is incredible for 1988! What's interesting is that some of this has come to pass. iSight isn't too far from this. But you're right. They talk right into the display and the display does track user gestures. It looks like MINORITY REPORT ripped off this 1988 apple video for its ideas on gestures.

Thanks for the link!

I love the funky 80's classes and hairdos!

So, this screen has like a gazillion eyes looking at you with fly like vision. It would take all of the processors' power to reconcile those images into one coherent image.
No. The point of this is the holy grail of user interphase. The screen will be able to see what you are looking at, either by retinal reflection or by triangulation of your pupils. The mouse becomes mute. Imagine being able to drag files with your eyes, navigate with eye gestures, etc. Add voice recognition and you are now living Star Trek.
JH

Quote

Guest wrote:
So, this screen has like a gazillion eyes looking at you with fly like vision. It would take all of the processors' power to reconcile those images into one coherent image.

LOL. A simple chip to assemble the image before sending it to the main system would cost what like $5?

Quote

Mikuro wrote:
It's certainly cool, but I can't help thinking of 1984. It's awfully scary. I like being able to A) choose not to have a camera hooked up, or B) Just cover up the darned lense. I sure wouldn't want a virus-writer unknowingly accessing my monitor's "looking glass" (more a risk for Windows users, of course, but still). If the feature's there in the monitor, I don't know how such manipulation could really be avoided.

I thought the exact same thing when I first read it. Cool technology though.

"The mouse becomes mute."

Yeah, shut that damn mouse up.

Problem is, as a scanner it would be WAY too low a resolution. It would work as a camera pretty well however.

This has beaten Apple to the punch. Might not be the same tech, but the camera is supposedly in the screen. go to www.dell.com, then go to gaming, and finally to 2006 Consumer Electronics Show. This is more like what I was hoping from Apple than a repackaged Powerbook with a lame-pro name.

Could be used as a touch screen as well? Neat idea. Wonder how it will affect picture quality?

Sorry, it's not a scoop:

http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/new_apple_patent_integrated_sensing_display/

On the other hand, it's an interesting take of this patent, John.

Quote

Guest wrote:
This has beaten Apple to the punch. Might not be the same tech, but the camera is supposedly in the screen. go to www.dell.com, then go to gaming, and finally to 2006 Consumer Electronics Show. This is more like what I was hoping from Apple than a repackaged Powerbook with a lame-pro name.

What a wonderfully off-topic post! It includes a built-in camera; like the MacBook Pro or iMac. It does not contain anything at all like what this patent describes.

Quote

Guest wrote:
So, this screen has like a gazillion eyes looking at you with fly like vision. It would take all of the processors' power to reconcile those images into one coherent image.

This is essentially how a digital camera forms an image, so this is no big deal. In fact recent advances in the technology promise incredible performance gains.

Quote

Guest wrote:
The mouse becomes mute.

Hey, we just got more than one button. Leave that mouse alone!

You could also use this as a scanner, think what that could do for laptops.

Quote

Guest wrote:
You could also use this as a scanner, think what that could do for laptops.

See Parkbench Navigator above.

It's really sad, and kind of scary, that Apple would be "first" to introduce this technology.

Can't you see a right-wing gov't passing legislation requiring such a sensor to be on and Internet-accessible, as long as the computer is being used, "for National Security purposes"... "to identify and track terrorists"...etc.?

Would that be out of character for the Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld administration of today?

Quote

Rainy Day wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
So, this screen has like a gazillion eyes looking at you with fly like vision. It would take all of the processors' power to reconcile those images into one coherent image.

This is essentially how a digital camera forms an image, so this is no big deal. In fact recent advances in the technology promise incredible performance gains.

Uh, no. The camera has a LENS, which focusses an image on the sensor array. Think of it this way: take a piece of photographic film and expose it for a short time to the light from a room. Would it pick up an image of the room? No. In order to create a recognizable image, each sensor must pick up light from only one small part of the view. That can be done with a lens or by putting the sensors at the bottom of a "deep" (relatively) hole, lined in black, so that light coming from directions other than straight ahead is blocked.

Why would the resolution be too low for use as a scanner? It seems to me thats where this tech would be best implemented, because I don't see how this could be a camera without a lens. Plus in scanning mode the screen would turn white just as a copier does now. An image sensor by each pixel sounds like a pretty decent resolution for scanning on a 15" powerbook, certainly good enough for text. Couple that with some image to text software and you have a killer app in my eyes, especially if the computer takes some form of tablet.

Tim Coughlin
http://timcoughlin.typepad.com

Quote

Small White Car wrote:

Quote

Mikuro wrote:
It's certainly cool, but I can't help thinking of 1984. It's awfully scary. I like being able to A) choose not to have a camera hooked up, or B) Just cover up the darned lense. I sure wouldn't want a virus-writer unknowingly accessing my monitor's "looking glass" (more a risk for Windows users, of course, but still). If the feature's there in the monitor, I don't know how such manipulation could really be avoided.

I have heard that the little green light by the camera in the iMacs is hard wired in such a way that it HAS to be on for the camera to work. So it would be impossible to hack...it's a hardware thing.

Now, that being said I can imagine a screen like this would be much more complicated and such a device might be impossible on a device like that.

But anyway, I thought I'd put your mind at ease about the current cameras out there at least.

----------------------
From what I understand it IS possible to hack microphones/cams at least as late as OSX 10.3. If a hacker were to modify your machines user privileges for user nobody, (dangerously easy if the machine in question is in single user mode)... You may well be on candid camera ALREADY.

This screen thing is EVEN worse. If you want a cam offer it on the side. If more and more of Apple's offerings "package" built in cams I'll probably opt out and use my old G4 with a CRT. LoL

Quote

Guest wrote:
It's really sad, and kind of scary, that Apple would be "first" to introduce this technology.

Agreed. You'd think they could use all that talent and brainpower for something useful.

Quote

Can't you see a right-wing gov't passing legislation requiring such a sensor to be on and Internet-accessible, as long as the computer is being used, "for National Security purposes"... "to identify and track terrorists"...etc.?

Would that be out of character for the Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld administration of today?

Yes, I can, and no, it would not. It would be completely in character for that cabal of criminals, and the even worse thing is that the entire right-wing neo-con chorus would chime in and agree. Anyone who disagrees would promptly be labeled as unpatriotic and accused of aiding and abetting terrorism. The phrase "I have nothing to hide" would be the automatic response from the lemmings.

I don't like having the built-in iSight on iMacs, and, no I don't have one. This would be worse, much worse.

Not only would criminals ba able to get your personal information, they could also ger a screen shot of you to help them fake an ID!