a nanolumens monitor too?

I just saw an interview/demo on Fox Business News regarding an 112 in
tv for $55,000. The most interesting thing is that it weighed only 75
lbs & is 1 in thick; the tv was VERY flexible as in like a sheet of
paper; can be WRAPPED around a column/post.

For gamers, a smaller size like 20-30 in, will be a boon as they can
curve in concave or convex form. Games in cinarama mode? or perhaps
just a 30 in monitor with the user customizing curvature for his
preference.

No info on the resolution or picture quality as the product was aimed
at businesses, but one never knows. The resolution only look ok on tv
but that could be camera angle & the interviewer moving the screen
around.

anotherpaul wrote:

> I just saw an interview/demo on Fox Business News regarding an 112 in
> tv for $55,000. The most interesting thing is that it weighed only 75
> lbs & is 1 in thick; the tv was VERY flexible as in like a sheet of
> paper; can be WRAPPED around a column/post.

A 1" thick display is like a sheet of paper to you? Seems like you're
thinking of stone tablets as they'd be that thick.

You think a monitor is lightweight at "only 75 pounds". I know many
users that couldn't tote around a monitor that heavy. Beep, beep, beep,
in comes the monitor on a forklift.

Since you have no link to the online review, I'll guess it has the 16:9
widescreen format. So a 112-inch display would have a width of 98".
That means it would take a column with a diameter or 31" to eliminate
overlapping the display that is wrapped around that column. There's
some buildings with them that big, or even bigger, but I don't think
you'll find many of them sitting on the corners or in conference rooms.

> The resolution only look ok on tv but that could be camera angle & the
> interviewer moving the screen around.

Wouldn't know because you didn't bother to give a link to the viewing.

I wouldn't think a monitor maker would actually advertise a display with
rating or moniker of NANOlumens - but they do (www.nanolumens.com).
They do the electronic billboards, too. Those aren't portable.

http://www.nanolumens.com/products/nanoflex/

Yeah, for billboards and huge public displays, 1" is thin. Not exactly
anything that anyone here would use for a monitor, though. Oh, you'll
need their specialty controller, too, and this display itself sucks up
500W. They don't give the resolution in their specs on the above page.
That article says it weighs 90 pounds, not 75.

Obviously NOT a product related to THIS newsgroup. No one is going to
use this as their monitor on a PC.

On 2012-01-26, VanguardLH <> wrote:
> anotherpaul wrote:
>
>> I just saw an interview/demo on Fox Business News regarding an 112 in
>> tv for $55,000. The most interesting thing is that it weighed only 75
>> lbs & is 1 in thick; the tv was VERY flexible as in like a sheet of
>> paper; can be WRAPPED around a column/post.
>
> A 1" thick display is like a sheet of paper to you? Seems like you're
> thinking of stone tablets as they'd be that thick.
>
> You think a monitor is lightweight at "only 75 pounds". I know many
> users that couldn't tote around a monitor that heavy. Beep, beep, beep,
> in comes the monitor on a forklift.
>
> Since you have no link to the online review, I'll guess it has the 16:9
> widescreen format. So a 112-inch display would have a width of 98".
> That means it would take a column with a diameter or 31" to eliminate
> overlapping the display that is wrapped around that column. There's
> some buildings with them that big, or even bigger, but I don't think
> you'll find many of them sitting on the corners or in conference rooms.
>
>> The resolution only look ok on tv but that could be camera angle & the
>> interviewer moving the screen around.
>
> Wouldn't know because you didn't bother to give a link to the viewing.
>
> I wouldn't think a monitor maker would actually advertise a display with
> rating or moniker of NANOlumens - but they do (www.nanolumens.com).
> They do the electronic billboards, too. Those aren't portable.
>
> http://www.nanolumens.com/products/nanoflex/
>
> Yeah, for billboards and huge public displays, 1" is thin. Not exactly
> anything that anyone here would use for a monitor, though. Oh, you'll
> need their specialty controller, too, and this display itself sucks up
> 500W. They don't give the resolution in their specs on the above page.
> That article says it weighs 90 pounds, not 75.
>
> Obviously NOT a product related to THIS newsgroup. No one is going to
> use this as their monitor on a PC.

The 1 in is for the 112 in tv; thinner if at 30 in; all relative. The
weight will also be less at the 20-30 in level; my Panasonic 37 in
plasma is already 75 lbs compared to my old 31 in Mits at 300
lbs. Too narrow minded in the interpretation.

I use a 2 in foam mattress topper; I can fold/roll it up easily out of
the way when I need to flip the mattress. A 2 in foam is in the
"middle" as a 1 in topper is considered "thin"; a 3-4 in topper
is considered "thick".

You are right as no one will use an 112 in tv for a "monitor"; but
someone may use a 20 in version as a home monitor, if available.
My laptop is connected to the 37 in TV via hdmi; am I using the
37 in TV as a monitor since that is what I look at when I do
some "surfing".

Monitors are part of pc-homebuilt just like keyboards, mice, or
network hard drives; how detailed a restriction do you want a
newsgroup to be.

I just thought that it was interesting as the possibilities but
will not bother this newsgroup anymore & unsubscribe; things
have gone much downhill & can do better things with my time.

anotherpaul wrote:

>
> I just thought that it was interesting as the possibilities but
> will not bother this newsgroup anymore & unsubscribe; things
> have gone much downhill & can do better things with my time.

The OLED based displays could be pretty thin. And the size of
the prototypes has been increasing, from one trade show to the
next. Maybe that will be the future. Only question about them,
is whether the display will last long enough to get your
money's worth.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/s...out-of-the-lab

http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/25/l...official-comi/

This shows you how thin OLED can be. "paper-thin .05mm"

http://gizmodo.com/5070275/flexible-...nd-in-the-wind

So that's the future. The size of the tiny panels, shows you
how hard they were to make for the first ones.

Paul