Talk:See-through display

Passive transparent displays

This MIT technology is not a transparent display. It's a more like a focusing screen/optical combiner. "a passive transparent display uses a projector as the external light source to project images and videos onto a transparent medium embedded with resonance nanoparticles that selectively scatter the projected light." I don't think it's appropriately placed in this article. Tarchon (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

Why is this its own article? This article is mostly uncited speculation that certainly doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines.

I would recommend this article for deletion, as this topic can easily be touched on in the articles for OLED and LED.

Thechungling (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

LED and OLED aren't the only transparent display technologies. Some see-though displays are based on the Pepper's ghost illusion, for example. Jarble (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Examples of such displays are the Cheoptics360 and Musion Eyeliner, but rather than writing about them here, they would be better added to Pepper's ghost. I agree with Thechungling - this article either needs a lot of alternative technologies included, or it should be deleted. Louis Knee (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Article is not limited to technologies involving projectors, mirrors or beam splitters as in Pepper's ghost. Solutions with OLEDs and LCDs can generate an artificial, additional image directly on a see-through panel such as a glass window.--BBCLCD (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Opening line of this article is "A see-through display is an electronic display that allows the user to see what is shown on the glass screen while still being able to see through it." suggesting the displayed image is generated by the screen, not passed through it (as with derivatives of Pepper's ghost). First line of "How it works" is "There are two major see-through display technologies, LCD and LED." The present version of this article directly excludes other approaches (such as beam splitter based techniques). On reflection, the give-away that this article is flawed is that the provided definition of "See-through display" is unclear and unreferenced. So the first question is, "Is there a generally-accepted and citable definition of 'see-through display?'" and what is it? Does it include (for example) Pepper's ghost derivatives? Wikipedia is not here to invent new definitions. If your expertise can settle that, then it will become obvious how to fix the rest of this article. Louis Knee (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think optical image combination is within the scope here. It was very clearly intended to refer to embedded active matrix systems. Image combination is a different animal. It's not very well covered on wikipedia, though beam splitter kind of does it. Tarchon (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the definition of a "see-through" display is that there isn't a widely agreed-upon and consistent usage. I worked on a technology that uses them for most of the last 12 years, and I frequently ran into the problem of identifying vendors because the vendors don't tend to use a consistent terminology, but "transparent display" is what I'm most familiar with in the context of embedded active matrix displays (preferred, inter alia, by Samsung, LG, Prodisplay, Lumineq, and CDS). When I read this article, that was clearly what it was talking about, before the MIT group put their blurb in, but I will also say that "see through display" is _sometimes_ used in the context of optically combined displays, but I don't get the sense that it's a real convention. The problem is that optically combined image systems is a huge, diverse field going back literally centuries (e.g. Pepper's ghost), and this article is wholly inadequate to it. That would even arguably include One-way_mirrors. I can only see two reasonable solutions, either make it clear that this is "transparent displays" as used in the industry that it currently describes, or completely rewrite it to include them as well as all 1001 different ways people have built "see through" displays with optical combiners. I'm happy to volunteer to do the first one. The second one has to be somebody else's problem. I will also note that under option two, the MIT blurb is an overemphasis of fairly obscure research. That's a common issue with science and tech articles, people come along and drop their research into it even if it's not of any particular notability relative to the field. Samsung, LG, Lumineq, they shipped working products. This thing with the nanoparticle combiner is just an idea that might maybe possibly work one day if they figure out how to get the resonances narrow enough. Tarchon (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the comments made by User:Tarchon. Probably, the title of this lemma has to be changed in order to exclude all types of solutions not based on transparent displays, i. e. electro-optical displays in the field of view excluding optical projection, etc. I have tried to define two distinct types of display categories used in augmented reality, see de:Erweiterte Realität#Technik.--BBCLCD (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Applications section too speculative and vague

"Augmented reality" is speculative - "several potential uses", "device could overlay", "will have much higher resolution" - and the "Retail" and "Event stage" are very vague. "Augmented reality" maybe just needs updating; I'm tempted to just delete the last two. I was going to add e.g. Cheoptics360 and Musion Eyeliner to "Event stage" but it's not clear they belong on this page at all. Louis Knee (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)