Is The Pixel About To Die?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Is the pixel about to die? Ummm, this article is cool and all, but I don't think the pixel is going anywhere any time soon.

Professor Phil Willis, from the University's Department of Computer Science, said: "This is a significant breakthrough which will revolutionize the way visual media is produced. "However, to accelerate this project we'll need companies from around the world to get involved. At the moment we're focusing on applications in post-production and we're working directly with leading companies in this area, however there are clear applications in web, tablets and mobile which we haven't explored in detail yet.
Click to expand...
 
So, what's the fill? What kind of process determines fill? Why would this eliminate the need for rasterized images? Is this only applied to video codecs? What kind of ... now I just have more questions than I woke up with this morning.
 
Time to create a vague patent about displaying information without the use of the pixel, wait 10 years and profit.
 
so someone figure out how to calculate any rasterized image into vector base and take less space?
 
Screw pixels. Bring on the Voxel!

I've never really understood pixels, it was never quite that appealing to me considering I've been so used to vector graphics. Conversations with artists friends of mine usually ends with me proving the point by asking them to draw a perfect circle with pixels :D
 
jubbie said:
Screw pixels. Bring on the Voxel!

I've never really understood pixels, it was never quite that appealing to me considering I've been so used to vector graphics. Conversations with artists friends of mine usually ends with me proving the point by asking them to draw a perfect circle with pixels :D
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can think of at least one application for pixels. You might even be looking directly at one as you read this.
 
Sweet, we'll finally be able to stream compressed versions of Tempest!!

Given that we all have raster displays, and current mainstream display technologies couldn't even do a vector display, I think we'll be on pixels for a while. I don't think you're going to be able to get decent video out of the vector displays that are available (but not mainstream: vector CRTs and laser light shows).

Could vector based compression still make sense? Maybe... but the output stage will have to raster it to the resolution of the device.
 
toast0 said:
Sweet, we'll finally be able to stream compressed versions of Tempest!!

Given that we all have raster displays, and current mainstream display technologies couldn't even do a vector display, I think we'll be on pixels for a while. I don't think you're going to be able to get decent video out of the vector displays that are available (but not mainstream: vector CRTs and laser light shows).

Could vector based compression still make sense? Maybe... but the output stage will have to raster it to the resolution of the device.
Click to expand...

I don't see penetration CRT's ever becoming cost effective in the sizes we need, nor the form factor.

I see this as more a content creation tool keeping filesizes down, while relying on a raster image processor and upscaler for current display technology. The only method that could be considered revolutionary would be their vector fill method, yet we can only speculate as there is ZERO information about that.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
I don't see penetration CRT's ever becoming cost effective in the sizes we need, nor the form factor.
Click to expand...

No idea about cost effectiveness, but there were also shadow mask color vector CRTs; form factor and power usage wise though, CRT is dead, and this isn't going to revive it.
 
I agree with all of the above, especially toast0 and Lenin. Also of note, unless they radically change how CCD/CMOS chips operate, your cameras that are capturing the images that this is compressing, captured them in pixels... so you would be converting pixels to a vector format, then back to pixels to display them on any kind of modern display. That kind of conversion is never best for image (or sound or anything else for that matter) quality.
 
thedocta45 said:
Time to create a vague patent about displaying information without the use of the pixel, wait 10 years and profit.
Click to expand...

Seriously end the thread on this comment alone. File this article with others like "The PC is dying" or "PC gaming is dying" nonsense the media loves the throw at us like the change is happening within 2 weeks...
 
The sample "breakthrough" picture looks horrible. The pixel/pixel block has nothing to worry about in codecs or other applications where it reigns.

Anyways, even if this were freshly buttered as the professor breathlessly hypes, the entrenched nature of all media codecs and billions of playback devices (often with hardware suited for standard codecs @ very low power consumption) wouldn't allow the contour tech to ever take hold. Dude should just do a pie in the sky TED talk or something.
 
Godmachine said:
Seriously end the thread on this comment alone. File this article with others like "The PC is dying" or "PC gaming is dying" nonsense the media loves the throw at us like the change is happening within 2 weeks...
Click to expand...

Because if you aren't extremely dramatic, no one cares. :D
 
jhambi said:
I agree with all of the above, especially toast0 and Lenin. Also of note, unless they radically change how CCD/CMOS chips operate, your cameras that are capturing the images that this is compressing, captured them in pixels... so you would be converting pixels to a vector format, then back to pixels to display them on any kind of modern display. That kind of conversion is never best for image (or sound or anything else for that matter) quality.
Click to expand...

Actually since you mentioned it, here's your camera to do just that. ;)
 
I really hate articles that discuss a new display tech, yet has only one pic, which is 640x480. Allmyrage
 
What the hell, you want to show it off but you use small ass pictures? That make it hard to differentiate anyway? How is that convincing at all?

And the article ...... seems to mention codecs...? Cuz I came in here thinking they were talking about monitor resolution and stuff.
 
Death of a pixel == interesting form of graphics compression? It isn't like JPEG, JPEG2000, and Microsoft's JPEG variant can't be reasonably scaled to fit arbitrary screens.

Apple has been trying to kill the pixel on the desktop since forever (NeXT shipped with such a scheme: display postscript), but it still seems likely to live forever. If the GIF won't die, why would the PNG?
 
So... basically they're using math to produce what equates to an analog color signal. Welcome to the 20th century. :rolleyes:
 
lol at all the misuse of the term "pixel"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top