Aris Silzard

An Unfortunate Consequence… Printed trade publications are by now pretty much history.  And of course many other printed publications are struggling as well.  Trade magazines were and are typically free to qualified users.  This means they have to generate all of their revenue from advertising.  Before the Internet came along, companies needed the exposure that came from advertising and writing articles for these trade publications.  But now, with Internet search engines and the much lower advertising rates that electronic publications can offer, most advertisers have succumbed to the seemingly greater benefits along with lower cost of electronic media.  Is this really as wonderful as it sounds?  Has the electronic media really provided all the benefits at much less cost compared to traditional printed publications?  Unfortunately, my personal observations as a user do not support this perception of panacea.  When I read a printed publication, I am in complete control of the process.  I can glance at ads, I can read the articles – or not, I can skip around if I wish, and I can do this wherever and whenever I want as long as I have the magazine tucked into my briefcase.   Retention for future reference is also trivially convenient – just tear out the page or article and bring it back to the office. Let’s now compare this convenient process to accessing a typical trade publication in electronic format.  I receive at least a dozen of these each day and they all seem to have settled into the same basic approach.  There are typically six to a dozen headlines along with short “teaser” paragraphs, surrounded by ads along both sides of the screen.  As far as my perception goes those ads do not even exist – I block them out.  I scan the article titles and if I see one that appeals to me I click on it.  So far so good!  However, at the next step is where life in the electronic information age begins to get less enjoyable.  Instead of getting the article I would like to read, up pops a full screen ad for something that I typically have no need for and/or no interest in.  There is sometimes the option for skipping these ads, but clever folks have built in a delay so I am forced to look at the ads for five or ten seconds anyway.  Then, finally,  I get to see the article except I must now wait while the screen is loaded with all variety of new ads that are placed in every available space on the screen – above the article, on both sides of the article, in the middle of the article.  The screen stays frozen while all this information is being dumped on me.   Again I must sit and wait until this process is complete before I can get past the title and the first paragraph.  So rather than being able to overview the information, I have been forced to sit and wait through two steps of ads being pushed on me that I really did not want to see. Recently, I have observed a new phenomenon that seems to be an additional insult in this process of making electronic media reading ever more inefficient.  I’m now encountering situations where only a portion of the article is made available on the first round of this already frustrating access.  After a few additonal paragraphs a “to be continued” note appears that tells me that if I would like to read the rest of the article — the most interesting part — I must now go to yet another electronic location.  And you guess it – the accessing process produces yet another round of pushed ads.  Our cable provider, Comcast, has likewise succumbed to a similarly obnoxious advertising push.  The home screen shows all kinds of headlines and photos to entice the user to click on an article or a video clip.  But instead of getting the video clip up comes a 30-second ad that cannot be cancelled before the clip is to be viewed.  I may be in some kind of a small minority here but I have never yet responded to one of these ads.  Instead they have made me so frustrated that I no longer even attempt to view anything that certain electronic publications send my way.  I have also become very selective of which articles I try to read in electronic trade publications.  I now know that it will take me several minutes of wasted time to get to the information that I want to see.   Compared to a printed publication, the efficiency of acquiring information is many times slower.  And because of the irritation factor, an ad that might have interested me in a printed publication gets purposely ignore on my monitor screen.  Finally, we have all learned by now that the Internet is a dangerous place.  There are all kinds of scams, malware, sites that pretend to be what they are not, and yet other lurking dangers.  It would be foolish to open any kind of promotional ad that is sent our way.  Even e-mails from people we know have to be viewed with care.  My real friends and colleagues never send me real messages that simply say “click here to see a great opportunity”.  But that is what occasionally comes my way in spite of their best efforts.  Yes, I do miss print publications.  They were convenient and reliable sources of information that could be enjoyed at odd times of the day.  It was very relaxing to just lean back in a chair with a magazine on my lap and flip through the pages at my own pace and discretion.   Is it possible that advertisers will come to realize that the Internet may not be all that wonderfully effective – and that maybe they can’t get the same result at much less cost?  Unfortunately, I think that is not going to happen any time soon.  The efforts to push promotional information at

Looking to the Future – Stuck in the Present… The incandescent light bulb has been with us for over a century.  It has served us well.  It is cheap to manufacture, uses readily available and benign materials, and gives off a pleasingly warm light.  The incandescent bulb’s biggest shortcoming is energy inefficiency in the visible spectrum.   However, that is not nearly as bad as some would make it out to be.  The rest of the energy that is not visible to us can help heat our homes in the colder months – which can be for most of the year in Northern climates.  Nevertheless, there has been a worldwide push to replace the incandescent bulb with something more energy efficient.  In the US, this push comes from a government mandate that, in effect, makes it illegal to sell incandescent bulbs of certain wattage ratings.  Over time, this mandate has been designed to broaden and encompass an ever-larger portion of the lighting product market.  For the last decade or so, the only economically viable alternative to the incandescent bulb has been the CCFL.  While these “squiggly” tubes have been adopted by consumers to a limited degree, they do not produce as pleasing a light as traditional bulbs, are temperature sensitive, do not turn on to full brightness instantly, and often cannot be used in light fixtures that incorporate dimming capability.  Because of these performance limitations and the CCFLs higher cost, some consumers have decided to “stock-up” on incandescent bulbs, before they are taken off the market, instead of making the transition to the more efficient CCFL lamps. Recently, this less-than-desirable transition process has taken a new direction toward a better alternative – one that will not require the force of a government edict to implement.  Over the last year or two, LEDs have evolved to become a strong competitor to CCFLs and are beginning to overwhelm the “squiggly” lamp technology.  LED lamps can now produce a light that is more pleasing, the brightness can be varied as desired, lifetimes are projected to be ten years or more, and costs are coming down to make them affordable for most consumers.  Thus, over the next few years, we can expect to see broad acceptance and implementation of LED technology for both commercial and residential applications.  With this accelerating trend, life now gets quite interesting.   An LED normally operates with a voltage of approximately 3 volts.  For continuous operation, this voltage can be DC or for pulsed operation is can be just about any pulse width or waveform as long as the desired light output is achieved.  Since the turn-on characteristic of an LED is that of a forward-biased diode, once the threshold voltage is reached any additional voltage causes the current to increase exponentially.  Thus, for proper power management, the LED must be operated as a current-controlled device.  So how does all this match up with the currently available 110 volt AC that we find in every home and business in the USA and, with minor variations, in every home and business worldwide?   Obviously, not well.  To make an LED plug-compatible with a 110 volt AC socket, each light “bulb” has to have its own power supply that converts the available AC voltage to something lower and reduces the reverse voltage to a safe level for the LEDs – typically connected in series or in series-parallel strings.  There also has to be circuitry to provide current control to keep the LEDs’ light emission at the desired level.  Thus, what we have ended up with is that each light “bulb” contains not only one or more LEDs as the light source but also comes complete with a power supply having many additional electronic components.  What a clumsy way to increase lighting efficiency!   If we could go back about a hundred years and start all over again, we would perhaps think about this and develop a lighting system that provides voltages more compatible with what LEDs need.   However, with the existing 110 volt AC (or similar) so deeply imbedded in every home and business can such a change even be contemplated?  Or is there perhaps some hybrid solution?  Could we consider a combination of AC and DC power in each new home constructed?  What would it take to retrofit existing homes, schools, and businesses? Alternating Current energy delivery with voltages in the 100 – 200 volt range has certainly proven its value for well over a century.  And it continues to be the best source of power for many electrical appliances, motors, and other devices.  It would thus appear that we could use a new approach predominantly for lighting.  Perhaps, the answer is to add a fourth wire to the typical three-wire system used currently in home and business wiring.  That would allow for the addition of a DC component in the range of perhaps 12 to 40 volts.  Then a central power supply could be added to the entry distribution panel that would still use the 220 volts AC typical in the US.   The result would be a significant reduction in the complexity of each LED light source with a consequential increase in reliability and reduction in cost.  What would it take to make this happen?  Most likely it will take the push from another government mandate.  And to get such a mandate it will take many years.  It will require that a plethora of self interests be evaluated and resolved.  But perhaps with some patience and good technical guidance from the engineering community we could see such a change begin to take shape in the next two to three decades.  In the meantime, we will have to get by with the less desirable solution of power supplies built into each light “bulb” – with the consequences of higher cost and lower reliability. Have you started the conversion process to LED lighting in a serious way in your home or business yet?   We are still in the early stages but the process is

How Much Did I Spend?… There is a new trend that seems to be growing and spreading like a bad virus and I think I am not going to like it.  For example, a few months ago I returned a rental car after two days of business travel and as usual I waited for the agent to print out a receipt.   However, this time I was politely informed that the receipt would be sent to me by e-mail.  My response to this offer was that I would prefer they give me the receipt right away so I can check to see if the charges match up with my expectations.  The requested receipt was printed for me and indeed there were no surprises. A few weeks later, as I was checking out of my hotel room, the desk clerk had a similar response – my receipt would be sent to me by e-mail.   I responded that I would like to see a copy before leaving so I could check to make sure all the charges were proper.  “Of course, sir” was the polite answer.  On this occasion, there was a missing breakfast that should have been included.  I pointed this out and the bill was corrected.  I was on my way knowing that the transaction was complete and I could turn in a proper expense statement to my client. Then a few days ago, I went to visit the store of my cell phone provider to return an item and to exchange it for two other less expensive accessories.  All the sales staff in this store now walk around with iPads that keep track of just about everything they are doing.  They use them to look up technical data, sales prices, item availability, etc.  Each and every transaction is done using these iPads.  And of course they also serve as a “cash register”.   Once again when I asked to get a receipt for this somewhat complex transaction, the friendly answer was that one would be sent to me by e-mail.  And as in my two other exemplary cases, I politely told this nice person I would like to have a copy of the receipt printed for me so I could review the transaction to make sure there were no surprises.  In this case, he had to go into a back room to print the receipt but I was able to leave the store knowing that the transaction had gone the way I had expected.  Fundamentally — if the world were a perfect place – there should be no problem with getting an e-mail receipt sometime after the transaction.  So why am I fussing?  Can’t I just accept the new methods of the 21st century?   Well, for me it’s not the method itself but what happens if something goes wrong — which unfortunately it does with alarming regularity.  Should the receipt arrive by e-mail and there is an error, now what do I do?  Who do I talk to to get the problem resolved?  If I call my major rental car company, I will need to go through many levels of automated menus to get to a real person.  And that real person has no idea where and what I rented and why the charges are incorrect.  Did I get charged for gas when I returned with a full tank?  How will they be able to check?   If the hotel has added mini-bar charges that I didn’t make, how long will it take me to straighten that out?  And even if they agree to remove them after a phone call or two, I won’t know that they were actually cancelled until my next month’s credit card bill shows up.  Having gone through this exercise when a hotel added an incorrect charge, I prefer not to spend any more time on these activities than absolutely necessary. As for my latest experience with my cell phone provider, that multi-level transaction had an even greater risk of ending up with an error.  With an e-mail receipt that shows up at some later time, it would be easy for me to also forget exactly what it was that I exchanged and what other items I purchased.  So here we go, riding an accelerating information age roller coaster, into a world of electronic transactions that the big computers up “in the cloud” will be managing for us.  And should that human on the input end push the wrong key or make some other mistake, well then the best of luck getting it unraveled later.  Will it even be possible to get a “real” person to help – especially one who lives on the same continent?  And how many buttons will you have to punch to even get that far?   Perhaps I am a reluctant participant in some of these new trends of the 21st century, but I always feel better when I know that a purchase transaction has gone as I expected.  I may not be very good at managing surprises – especially ones involving my finances.  I do like to know how much I spent when I leave the store.  There is a good news aspect to all this for those of us in the display industry.  As these remote “cash registers” proliferate, each one needs a nice display and these heavily used devices will require constant updating and replacement.  So from a business standpoint this is good news for display manufacturers.  It’s also good news because it introduces people to yet another new application for display panels.  They are becoming ever more ubiquitous in our world.  That part I like.  However, this ubiquity should not necessitate the sacrifice of conveniences that we have come to expect and that make our lives more predictable.  A purchase transaction should require the agreement of both the seller and the buyer and that agreement needs to be recorded in a way that the buyer as well as the seller can review and accept.  The sending of e-mails at

The View Through a Window Frame… Most of us have accepted by now the reality that 3D television has not been the tremendous success that many in the display industry had hoped to see.   It has clearly not been the “great new technology” that would have an impact on television sales similar to the transition from CRTs to flat-panel displays together with the transition from analog NTSC to digital HDTV.  In fact, 3D seems pretty much dead as far as consumer enthusiasm to go out and buy a new TV just to have this capability.  Sure, if it comes at no additional cost, no one objects.  But, day by day, it’s getting harder to find anything on a showroom floor that demonstrates what a 3D television viewing experience might look like.  This leaves a number of industry experts and “analysts” who were predicting how wonderful 3D would be for the future of the television industry with major egg on their cumulative faces.  So, of course, there is the desire to explain away why it didn’t work out the way they expected.  It appears that currently one favorite explanation is that there was insufficient content for people to watch — If only the television networks had provided more 3D programming all would have gone as predicted.  Furthermore, if movies can succeed in 3D why can’t television?   Another explanation is that the failure of consumer acceptance was caused by the need to wear glasses (active or passive) to view 3D programs.  Once we get rid of those darn glasses then 3D television will succeed.  In my opinion, there is a more fundamental reason why some movies do well in 3D and why this does not (and will not) translate to the typical television home viewing experience.  Consider that for stereoscopic 3D, we as viewers have to suspend reality.  Otherwise, there are too many eye brain conflicts for us to accept the two disparate images our eyes see as “real”.  Stereoscopic 3D provides no eye focus depth cues and there is no change in the image when we move our heads.  There is also no eye convergence variation since the images are projected onto a screen at a fixed distance.  For that reason stereoscopic 3D always has an “artificial” look about it.  We do see depth but it never looks entirely real.   So what can work best for this “not-quite-right” viewing experience?   Something that is already in the realm of fantasy and our brains can accept as being divorced from our everyday life as we experience it.  That is a good fit for animation, for science fiction, or any other story line that is based on situations that are inherently imaginary.  Then if we add a dark room (movie-theater) and a large screen that encompasses most of our field of view we can temporarily live in this fantasy cocoon and find it quite enjoyable. However, the home viewing experience is not like a movie theater.  Rooms are typically not dark so we have a peripheral reality to deal with.  The TV does not fill our field of view nearly as well.  So what we end up seeing is the 3D image as something that compares to looking through a window frame into another space that is separated from us.  Thus, instead of becoming immersed in the viewing experience we end up with the opposite effect.  The television screen creates a boundary that causes us to feel more remote from the action on the screen than if we were watching without the addition of the artificial 3D effect.  This cannot be fixed with any contemplated technology improvements such as the elimination of polarizing and/or shutter glasses.  What is interesting to observe is how, in spite of this knowledge, the research efforts are continuing to try to make improvements in conventional stereoscopic 3D displays.  It appears it will take a few more years of effort before there is common understanding of what can be expected from this technology and where the best applications may lie.  By continuing the work, we will also learn the challenges that lie ahead before we can expect to create a truly immersive and realistic viewing experience.  Unfortunately, those who are still clinging to the expectation that with just a few minor modifications 3D will become an accepted viewing mode for television are in for some serious disappointments.   I would very much like to hear your thoughts about what we can expect to see on televisions in the years to come.   You may contact me directly from this site, by e-mail at silzars@attglobal.net, or by telephone at 425-898-9117. 

The Concert… It was a beautiful summer evening. The sun was beginning to set and the temperature was in the comfortable high 70s. One couldn’t ask for a better day to attend an outdoor concert at the Chateau Ste. Michelle winery. The grounds of Ste. Michelle are park-like and reflect old-world charm. When strolling along the pathways past the chateau it is easy to fantasize being in France — much like a visit to Versailles. The concerts are held in a large open area with a permanent elevated stage. Lights and speakers are suspended from several overhead beams. The low frequency woofers – about a dozen – are located below and on the stage itself. No question that plenty of audio power can be generated to satisfy even the most ardent rock concert fan. The concert we had chosen to attend was of a more subdued nature – the music of Abba. Their music is more in a traditional popular song format – although with a contemporary feel. The songs were performed by a very capable female vocalist with a variety of instruments providing a rich background accompaniment. Needless to say, it was a thoroughly enjoyable evening – made even more so by several glasses of excellent wine and hors devours. Music has always been an important part of my life. During my grade school and high school years, I took piano lessons and in high school was the designated accompanist for the school choir. High fidelity reproduction became popular when I was in my teenage years and became a serious hobby for me, along with my growing interest in electronics. I saved my birthday and Christmas gift money for several years to purchase a good quality amplifier, tuner, turntable, and bass reflex speaker. It brought me great joy to be able to play classical recordings of piano music and symphonies and to be able to imagine that I was actually in a concert hall. By today’s standards, the technical specifications for harmonic and intermodulation distortion of my vacuum tube amplifier were not all that impressive, but the sound quality was nevertheless quite good. Later in life, as my financial situation improved, I was able to put together a seriously high-quality sound system with speakers that took up a significant part of our family room. The goal for me was always to come as close as possible to what one would hear in a concert hall while listening to a classical symphony orchestra and/or solo performers. With this life-long passion for music and music reproduction – during the drive home — I began to think about this concert. As already noted, the overall experience was outstanding. With no effort I had been able to immerse myself in the enjoyment of the music. But the scientist in me began to wonder — how did these massive speakers and high-power amplifiers do in providing accurate reproduction of the musical performance? The surprising answer that came to me is: I really didn’t know and in fact there would be no way to know. Other than the voice of the female vocalist, all the music was created on electronic instruments. So what are they “supposed” to sound like? There is no way to compare the “real” sound to what we hear reproduced the way we can with a classical symphony or with a conventional piano. I know what a piano is supposed to sound like because I have played one for many years. But what is an electronic keyboard supposed to sound like? Well, I suppose it can sound like anything that the circuitry can generate. This thought process led me to the interesting conclusion that many young people growing up today don’t really know or care if music reproduction is accurate as long as they can immerse themselves in whatever sounds are being sent to their ears. So we have ended up with ear-buds for portable entertainment, boom box speakers for our cars, and giant woofers at concert halls whose purpose is to overwhelm the audience with audio vibrations so powerful that they are felt as well as heard. We have traded audio accuracy for visceral sensations. We appear to have passed through and beyond a time when accuracy of musical reproduction was appreciated. Other than the small and probably shrinking market segment of consumers who appreciate classical music, there is little perceived value in highly accurate music reproduction. After all, if the sounds are electronically generated how are we to know what they “should” sound like? And the human voice has a limited frequency range and is also likely to have been electronically enhanced in the recording studio. Some years ago, it would have been inconceivable to imagine that a time would come when we would be happy to have something not as good as technology can produce. But that is exactly where we are today and the future is not likely to take us back to earlier times. Now, and looking into the future, sound sensations are “in”, wearable and portable devices are “in”, and really loud sounds are “in”. But high-quality reproduction is no longer an important purchasing criterion. The world changed in perhaps a surprising and unpredicted way. Could something similar happen in the display industry? I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on what you see in the future for audio reproduction technology, and if you think some unpredicted or unanticipated change could also happen in the display industry. You can reach me directly from this site, by e-mail at silzars@attglobal.net, or by telephone at 425-898-9117.

Data Tubes… On a recent trip to my local bank, I pulled in to the drive-up window.  The open stall was the one furthest from the teller.  I took my check and deposit slip put them into the cylindrical transport tube and sent them whooshing on their way to the teller through a pipe that has differential air pressure.  Moments later I could see my check and deposit slip pop out inside the bank onto the teller’s counter.   So what’s so interesting about that?  It’s a technology that has been around for at least a hundred years.  And that is exactly what is so interesting about it.  Here we are well into the information age where everything has to be done “on-line” and yet this rudimentary technology for sending packets of information has survived the information age developments that have changed out lives.   And if we do a bit of analysis we will see that this is actually a very reliable and versatile way to transmit data.  I can remember when I was growing up my parents took me to what at that time was a large department store.   Even then I was fascinated by the way the purchase transactions were handled.  In this particular store, there were no cash registers on the sales floor.  All transactions were accomplished by sending the sales slips and tendered money (yes, real money!) to a central accounting room on an upper floor by the use of these tubes.  Whatever monetary change was due came back a few moments later and popped out at the sales person’s station.  Let’s consider the benefits of sending information through a tube.  Anything that fits into the cylindrical transport module is acceptable.  There is no need to “format” information.  In fact I don’t even have to use paper.  I can send money, or my credit card, or even an item such as a ballpoint pen.  And, of course, I can send information on pieces of paper whether printed or handwritten.  There is no concern about someone “hacking” into my data.  The contents is snug and safe inside its little transport module.   And over short distances it’s just as fast – or even faster — as having to enter information onto a display terminal.   Can you imagine the frustration of pulling up to the drive up window and being told that you have to enter all the pertinent transaction information onto a touch screen before the transaction can be completed?  I know many of us are willing to do this when accessing ATM machines, but how would I make a check deposit if I can’t submit the check?   Recently, while visiting some well-known electronics stores, I have encountered what I’m sure is being considered the latest in technology “improvements” for interacting with customers.  That is the use of touch pads to check product pricing, specifications, and to complete the sale.  However, it seems that the benefits of this method are mostly for the merchant and less so for the customer.  If you ask for a receipt the typical response is that one will be sent to your e-mail.  However, being the conservative and not-so-trusting person that I am, I always ask for a printed receipt.  The usual response is that the printer is in the back of the store and the sales person will – reluctantly — have to make a special trip to go get the printed copy.  Sometimes old technology still has its benefits.  If I have to review a technical paper or a patent, I still find it far more convenient to print the document so that I can compare the text to the figures (that are often on different pages) and so that I can make handwritten notes to remind me of key points.  I have yet to figure out how to do such a review process as efficiently on a computer terminal — even with two displays side by side.   There is also the convenience of being able to do the editing at any location and body position of my choosing.  I don’t have to sit in front of a display screen to do it.  Perhaps as we get further along in the development of touch technology, the electronic version will become as convenient as a printed copy.  However, so far pieces of paper are my preference.    I would be interested to hear how you are adapting to the ever evolving world of electronic data transmission.  Perhaps you too have found some techniques from years past that still serve you well.   Will flexible displays with touch capability be the next phase in this evolution?  You may contact me directly from this site, by e-mail at silzars@attglobal.net, or by telephone at 425-898-9117.

Dying Embers… The glow of plasma display technology is fading quickly.  All those years of progress and ever-improving performance were not quite enough to stay ahead of the even more impressive developments that have taken place in liquid crystal technology.  Perhaps as soon as five years from now most consumers will not even remember that there was once a television with a display called a plasma panel.  Not so many years ago, the consensus in the display industry was that plasma technology would hold the majority market share in flat-panel televisions larger than 40-inches in diagonal measure.  It was thought that active matrix LCDs would be too expensive and too difficult to produce in sizes even significantly smaller than 40 inches – let alone much larger than 40-inches.   LC technology was also considered to be too slow for good video performance and the inherently narrow viewing angles would make it less desirable for television than for computer monitors.  But the engineers and scientists working on LC technology were able to devise major improvements for every LC limitation and soon the performance gap with plasma was closed.  Faster LC materials and new driving waveforms overcame the speed-of-response limitation.  Multi-domain structures solved the angle-of-view problem.   And through improved backlight technologies the LCD televisions appeared brighter and more eye catching when seen in a typical showroom. The last bastion for plasma technology was anticipated to be lower cost.   All of us in the display industry expected that the TFT backplane of an LC display would always be significantly more expensive to produce than the simpler structure of a plasma panel.  However, even that proved to be mostly wrong.  In today’s marketplace there is little difference between the price of an LCD television and a PDP television.   Thus, while it may be true that the backplane cost is higher, by the time the electronic circuitry is included and the rest of the materials are accounted for the final price difference is not enough to create a sustainable marketplace advantage.   In my own work, I have often been presented with the opportunity to compare LCD and PDP televisions.   And as time has passed, I have tended to lean toward the products made with LC panels.  The differences are not great when viewing the images, but other factors such as the overall weight of the televisions enter in.  The glass used in a PDP television is significantly thicker and heavier than in an LCD television.  This makes handling the larger PDP TVs much more challenging.   Setting up a 50-inch plasma television is a two-person project while even a 55-inch LCD television is something that I can reasonably handle by myself.  It is somewhat sad to think about all the years of engineering and scientific effort that went in to the development of plasma panel technology.  From the modest beginnings of a monochrome orange glow, to the many interesting inventions that were made to create full-color high-resolution panels that were able to show spectacular HDTV video images.   Many engineers devoted their entire careers to these developments and companies made major investments in production facilities to manufacture these products.  And now that is all in the process of being phased out.  There appears to be a fundamental law of nature that requires that we make many diverse efforts before the best one finally wins the survival race.  Think of all the other display technologies that have attempted to succeed over the years.  Of course the CRT was a dominant technology for many years.  But along the way we also had EL as a promising contender.  Then along came attempts to utilize cold-cathode electron emission (FEDs).  Yet others proposed a variety of light guiding structures.  Some even proposed hybrid combinations such as LC with plasma cells.  If we had the wisdom to be able to predict the technology that will provide the best final solution, we would, of course, not have to take all these side paths.  However, that does not appear to be the natural order of things.   Until we give each potential approach our best effort it appears that we have no way of being able to predict which outcome will eventually be the winner. For the next few years – at least – the clear winner will be LC technology.  It meets our viewing needs remarkably well.  For a new technology to threaten its dominance it will indeed have to be something significantly superior.  Will OLED provide that threat?  In the same way that we could not predict how LC technology would evolve we now have the uncertainty about OLED technology.  There are still many challenges for OLED technology to overcome before we will be able to guess at an answer.    In my own career, I too have had the opportunity to work on many display technologies.  Some were related to electron beams, some were related to other inventive approaches, and some of the work was with LCDs.  Most of the efforts were considered technical successes at the time but not all made it into marketable products.  But at least I have the satisfaction that those that did not succeed, nevertheless, ended up contributing to overall scientific and engineering knowledge.  In any case, they always provided a challenge and an inspiration for me to continue on.  Should you wish to share your own experiences with technology development throughout your career, you may contact me directly from this site, by e-mail at silzars@attglobal.net, or by telephone at 425-898-9117.

Wishful Thinking… The Christmas Holidays have evolved from traditions that date back many centuries.  While some of these traditions have roots in Christianity, others have been adopted from various European mid-winter celebrations.  The giving and receiving of gifts is one tradition that has grown over time to pretty much overwhelm all others.   Perhaps this has happened because children are such an important part of any family’s celebration and for them opening presents represents an important part of their lives.    So here we are in the midst of the annual gift-buying frenzy.  To make sure that we don’t miss even one potentially interesting purchase, each day our mailbox holds at least five of six catalogs offering all sorts of gifting possibilities.  Many of these gift ideas are ones we would not have envisioned on our own.  And that is, of course, exactly the reason why these catalogs are so useful to the merchants sending them.  There are, for example, catalogs devoted entirely to gifts for our pets – do they really wait for the arrival of Santa Claus?   (I’m quite sure that I can predict how our puppy/guard-dog would react to Santa coming down our chimney).  There are catalogs for kitchen gadgets.   There are catalogs for various styles of clothing.   And the list goes on.  Given the cost of printing and mailing, why don’t the merchants just use the Internet?  Wouldn’t this be a far more cost-effective way to promote their products?  Aren’t we all doing our shopping and product searches electronically these days?   Hasn’t the rest of the world caught up with what we have witnessed in the technology sector where virtually all trade publications are no longer available in print?  These magazines are now delivered only to our electronic mailboxes rather than the ones out by the street.  Don’t these merchants realize that they could save a bundle of money by doing it all “on-line”? Or is it possible that they know something that we in the technology world have yet to figure out?   When I read a trade magazine in print, I tend to do it when I have some time to spare – such as in an airport or on an airplane.  Or maybe I take it along when I have an appointment where I will have to wait.  Or I may sit in front of the TV and peruse the publication while commercials are on.  This gives me time to browse not only the articles but also the advertisements.  Quite often I will spot something that I didn’t know existed but that could be helpful in my work.  It may be a new company, a new instrument, or a new part that I would not have known how to search for.   This produces the exact benefit that the seller desired – exposing their products to a new customer.   However, does this form of advertising work on-line?  Well, not for me.  When I receive a trade publication on-line, I focus only on the titles of the articles.  Push-advertising that interferes with my attempt to get at the content only irritates me and has never caused me to respond to the ad.  Neither have any of the ads surrounding the articles.  They get ignored as well.  So why the difference in my response (and I suspect of many others) to on-line vs. print advertising?   I believe that it’s the fundamentally different way that we read something on-screen versus how we read a printed publication.  When we receive a publication on-line, it’s always in a bundle with other e-mails that require a response.  That creates time pressure to get the responses done before moving on to other activities.  There is no time to pause and look at ads or other distractions.  A quick scan of the article titles is all that we can typically manage – and perhaps reading one or two articles that seem especially important.  It’s simply the wrong time and environment for paying attention to ads.      Will companies in the technology sector come around to what other merchants have now learned?  It’s hard to say.  The prevailing opinion may continue to be that we can do it all on-line with search engines.  That can work well for those products and capabilities with which we are already familiar.   But what about those products or new innovations that we have not yet discovered?   How are we to find those unexpected gems that may pop out at us while browsing through a print publication?  It may be that we have reached the bottom of this rush to save money by trying to do it all on-line.  We are beginning to see some of our colleagues in the technology sector begin to move back to having at least some of their promotional material in print media.   Perhaps the example of consumer-oriented merchants emphasizing print advertising will begin to spread back into trade publications.  It would serve our industry well to have that happen.  When visiting companies, I was always pleased to see Information Display magazine on a table in the lobby.  It was a demonstration of the company’s interest and desire to participate in the International display community.  That is something worth keeping.  Should you have some thoughts that you would like to offer regarding this topic or others, please contact me directly from this site, by e-mail at silzars@attglobal.net, or by telephone at 425-898-9117.

Reality Sets In – But It’s Hard to Let Go… Since my early teenage years, I have had an interest in photography.  It was stimulated early on when an uncle showed me how he printed black and white pictures in his modest darkroom located in the corner of a closet in a home they were renting.  I was fascinated by the process of exposing a sheet of paper to the dim light coming from the enlarger and then seeing the image appear in the developing tray.    I saved my money for many months to get my first “real” but modest camera – a Kodak Retinette.  I still have it.   By today’s optical standards the lens is really not very good, but at the time I was proud and happy to have it.  Over the years, I was able to acquire cameras that were much better, had the capability of interchangeable lenses, and I subsequently added cameras with larger film formats for even better picture quality.  Along the way, I was also able to acquire my own darkroom with the capability of making color prints in sizes as large as the paper that could be purchased.   Making my own color prints and mounting them for framing became a serious hobby.  Today the darkroom is still there.  The enlarger sits on its special table.  In the same room is a large cabinet for storing all the camera equipment.  There are 35-mm film cameras and lenses in there.   There are larger format 2 ¼ x 2 ¼ cameras and assorted lenses.  And there are all kinds of bottles and graduated cylinders for measuring developer and bleach-fix chemicals.  However, for several years now they have not been put to use.  And while I keep thinking that one of these days I will get back to doing film photography, it doesn’t seem to be happening.  In the meantime, I am using my three digital cameras on a regular basis, cleaning up the images on my computer, and using a photographic-quality printer when I want to have something to hang on a wall or give to someone as a gift.  Is it realistic to think that one day soon I will get back to doing film photography and printing photos in my very nice darkroom?  I have kept hoping this would happen and that I wouldn’t have to let go of over 30 years of learning and experience.   And of course no one is forcing me to do that.  If I so chose, I could spend time making prints just as I used to do.  But It’s not happening.   The reality is that it may be time to let go of the past and move on.  The capabilities of digital cameras now exceed those of any comparable film camera.  The images from the digital cameras can be further improved using software that is now available.   And inkjet printers are now able to produce images every bit as good as one can do with darkroom chemistry.   So while I am sad that all those wonderful film cameras that sit in my cabinet are unlikely to see any more use, the good news is that my ability to make interesting photographs has only gotten better.  Nevertheless, for me it’s still hard to let the past go.  The film cameras were made with such precision and such care.  They were like expensive watches — functional and mechanically perfect, and meant to last for many years.  Now they are relegated to museum displays that only hint at their past glories.  Yes, indeed, it’s hard to let go.  Have you had an easier time making the transition from film to digital?  If so, do you still have your old film cameras?   I would enjoy hearing your experiences.  You may reach me directly from this site, by e-mail at silzars@attglobal.net, or by phone at 425-898-9117.

Dreams Fulfilled… Almost since the beginning days of television more than 60 years ago, we dreamed of and pursued the quest for televisions that would someday hang on our walls like fine-art paintings.  In the last 10 years we have realized this dream beyond our wildest imaginings.   Did anyone — even 20 years ago — expect that we would have flat-panel displays so large that we wouldn’t know where to find the wall space to place them?  And did anyone think that we would be analyzing these images by comparing them to the resolution capabilities of our own eyes?  In the year 1968, we were treated to the classic science fiction movie 2001 – A Space Odyssey.  Most of the space travel innovations depicted in that movie did not come to pass.  We don’t have an elaborate space station and we don’t have a computer that can emulate human misbehavior.  However, we do have tablet computers that are very much like the ones shown being used by the astronauts on their way to Jupiter.  Another dream that has come to pass much as envisioned over 40 years ago.   Some years ago, we also enjoyed the Star Trek series on television.  Captain Kirk used a “communicator” that we today would recognize as having an uncanny likeness to smart-phones or even the more modest flip-phones.  In fact, it seems that our smart phones have significantly more capability than the communicators that Captain Kirk and his crew had at their disposal. Then in 1954, we had the classic movie 20,000 Leagues under the Sea.  In it Captain Nemo’s sophisticated submarine had lighting that did not generate heat.  How was this accomplished?  To my recollection the story line did not provide an explanation.  It was a magical invention that only Captain Nemo knew about.  Yet here we are 60 years later with not only LED and OLED technology available to us but even a government mandate to use it in our homes.  Wouldn’t Captain Nemo have had a good laugh about that? All of these dreams and fantasies of the past century have come to pass.  Many others, such as human space travel, haven’t even come close to being realized and may not be for decades to come. There is a common thread in all the realized dreams and those that have even surpassed our fantasies of yesteryear.  They all relate to displays.  We have made them small, large, flat, high-resolution, colorful, lightweight, sunlight readable, and energy efficient.   They are indeed very very good.  Now comes the hard question.  What dreams and fantasies remain yet to be satisfied?  What else do we need or would like to have?  Do we need them to be flexible, or sewn into clothing?  Doesn’t seem all that exciting to me.  What else have we imagined in the past that would give us a direction of an unmet need or desire?  Perhaps the closest I can come up with as a major leap in viewing capability would be a true virtual reality experience.   That would require a display environment capable of modeling the world around us in the same way as we perceive it.  In the Star Trek series I believe this was described as the “holodeck”.   Perhaps we are not such a long way from being able to do that.  However, our current efforts at stereoscopic 3D do not even come close to creating a realistic viewing experience.  In fact, the double image stereo views in our current displays are more likely to be a distraction from what we would otherwise enjoy from our high-definition flat-panel screens.  A starting point in this quest for the “holodeck” could be a head-mounted display that produces superb images that can instantly respond to head movement and eye movement of the user.  If we can create a display that mimics what our eyes are expecting to see as we scan our virtually created surroundings, compensates accurately for head position and movement, and mimics the focal depth of the virtual objects – then we may be on to something.  A fantasy world that realistic would be quite the adventure.  The technology to accomplish this is close at hand.   No fundamental inventions are required.   But for the major manufacturers of consumer televisions and smart phones would there be a large enough market to dedicate the engineering resources necessary to develop a really interesting virtual reality product?  In the beginning there may only be limited appeal for certain special applications such as games.    Does this mean that we have no more major dreams to fulfill?  Perhaps we are now entering a period of more gradual improvements that refine our dreams.  New experiences may not come about as quickly as the iPad and the iPhone did.      Are you ready for a virtual reality experience?  I am.  It would be a great way to do virtual sightseeing of places in the world that may otherwise be too difficult or too dangerous to access.   If you would like to offer your thoughts or dreams about this future, you may contact me directly from this site, by email at silzars@attglobal.net, or by telephone at 425-898-9117.