So lately I've been thinking about this comic and why exactly it is true. In theory, if you are staring at a light source, there should be light bouncing off of your face. If you have ever taken a magnifying glass to an LCD screen, you should be able to see the clearly defined individual pixels. The tiny spacing between each pixel should be enough to separate each beam of light and focus it into a projection. In fact, it really does work.
So why how can both youtube and xkcd be correct? It's because of the implementation of the light source. With a direct light source with enough lumens, you can actually push a projection through the LCD which will act as a very sharply focused gel of sorts. Other than the obvious reason of not wanting to stare into the power of a car's headlight as you work on your homework, the reason xkcd is correct, is because of the use of a reflector.
I order to evenly light the entire screen, and to keep the profile of the monitor as thin as possible, a reflector is used on the back of the monitor. The light source is actually the same that you might find in a flatbed scanner. It usually lays across the bottom of the monitor and points upwards. In the back is a diffuse reflector to help evenly smooth the light over the entire surface.
I order to evenly light the entire screen, and to keep the profile of the monitor as thin as possible, a reflector is used on the back of the monitor. The light source is actually the same that you might find in a flatbed scanner. It usually lays across the bottom of the monitor and points upwards. In the back is a diffuse reflector to help evenly smooth the light over the entire surface.
With the indirect angle and low peak candella, LCD monitors are natively poor projectors.
No comments:
Post a Comment