We pretty much don’t know anything about this POV device other than it uses 96 LEDs. We’ve seen POVs with more LEDs, but usually they aren’t packed in so tight. This thing looks almost capable of displaying low res movies. Wouldn’t this thing be cool, and probably dangerous, in a hat?

[via Hacked Gadgets]

15 thoughts on “96 LED POV

  1. This particular arrangement for POV could actually allow a simpler form of a concept I’ve thought about for a while. In this case, if the display used perhaps an RGB plasma display (think a single row of screen pixels, maybe 800 high) you could have a color POV display that could accommodate several viewers at the same time, provided they were viewing it from different angles. Apply this concept to, say, a multiplayer FPS game, only instead of dividing the screen into halves or quarters like on a conventional display, you could give each view angle it’s own POV “display”. It would have to spin very fast, and would require a pretty hefty amount of processing power to process the images, but it would certainly be a neat proof of concept.

  2. nephroth: i’ve thought of that before myself, but then i had some other thoughts. like the shape of the display is back just like an old skool trinatron instead of actually flat. that might be an issue with anything widescreen format because it’d be like watching around a pole (unless the thing was just enormous. and think about how fast that would have to be spinning… 60fps, so it would have to do 60 revolutions per second to give what most tv’s are at these days. that’s like 3600 rpm? certainly obtainable, but it sure would be making a lot of noise if electric and putting out more air than a box fan.

    i got thinking about putting multiple layers, so you could have 3d images. like clock hands they’d just have to be different lengths and timed correctly. you could also “flatten out” the display by creating “slices” that go through the circle.

    but these things would end up being huge, not very power efficient and noisy. definitely cool though.

  3. Pity cameras have such difficulty viewing POV displays. Though it’s slightly flickery monochrome slideshow looks like something that should be mounted in large-scale atop a building in Blade Runner.

  4. why couldn’t it do 3d?
    and wouldn’t you want at least one more string of leds off the other side for balance if nothing else?
    although I would think the more you added the better your fps could be.
    I would think 3d would just mean a different picture stitched in at different points as it went around.
    to make it cool, and not a lil safer, I’d toss a globe over it and try to get touch control. so you could turn your 3d object.
    but how do ya get 360degree touch sensing?

  5. Looks like the base is an old ceiling fan

    Jeff: seems like you could use not just one row, but two (or even three, if balanced correctly) to have the same refresh rate at lower RPM’s

  6. @bludwulf and underdog:

    Yeah I wasn’t thinking, by putting just a second row on the opposite side it would not only balance the contraption, but also cut the speed needed to achieve a frame rate in half. 4 would make it seem down right slow!

    @buldwulf: i wasn’t meaning 3d trickery, if you had an extra arm with another led setup inside the current arm you could have physical 3d. As it is all the space inside the blade is just wasted anyway.

  7. jeff: That would be awesome! Just imagine having four curved blades with two [or more] rows of leds on each blade, allowing 3d images, and a touchscreen globe around the whole thing. That would be amazingly awesome.

Leave a Reply

Please be kind and respectful to help make the comments section excellent. (Comment Policy)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.