Re: LED Apparent Brightness
- From: Rich Grise <richgrise@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 20:37:46 GMT
On Mon, 09 May 2005 15:05:21 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 09 May 2005 14:13:16 -0700, Charlie Edmondson
>>>
>>There is only one good reason to pulse a light source to get brighter
>>illumination when multiplexing is not needed... if you are matching to a
>>shuttered imager. I had an application that I was developing, in which
>>we were going to use an IR filter in front of a standard CMOS imager,
>>adn then use a pulsed IR source with a short pulsewidth matched to an
>>equally short shutter time on the camera. By sync'ing these together,
>>the IR illuminator could be the predominate light source, overpowering
>>even daylight, while still maintaining eye safety.
>
> Too bad LCDs are so slow. The ideal backlight would be sequentially
> pulsed R-G-B led's.
But, um, is it seriously unrealistic to contemplate a panel of RGB LEDs,
say, 640 x 480, all by themselves, being pixels? Like a micro-jumbotron?
Frankly, I've been wondering about that ever since I started reading about
the various technologies that have been studied for making flat-screen
displays. Is it just that it would be so prohibitively expensive?
Thanks,
Rich
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: LED Apparent Brightness
- From: Robert Baer
- Re: LED Apparent Brightness
- From: John Fields
- Re: LED Apparent Brightness
- From: John Larkin
- Re: LED Apparent Brightness
- From: Charlie Edmondson
- Re: LED Apparent Brightness
- References:
- LED Apparent Brightness
- From: RST Engineering \(jw\)
- Re: LED Apparent Brightness
- From: Charlie Edmondson
- Re: LED Apparent Brightness
- From: John Larkin
- LED Apparent Brightness
- Prev by Date: Re: [OT] -- Anybody using Distinctive Ring?
- Next by Date: Re: Tantalum cap failures
- Previous by thread: Re: LED Apparent Brightness
- Next by thread: Re: LED Apparent Brightness
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading