A Video Screen That Is Also a Camera

Amazing:

Researchers from ETH Zurich in Switzerland, however, managed to create a new type of pixel that can simultaneously do both. This hypercharged pixel, called a Fourier pixel, can generate and sense arbitrary light fields and tap into a pixel’s full potential for carrying information by manipulating light’s intensity, oscillation phases, and polarization. The team reported its findings in a paper published yesterday in Nature.

We are one step closer to 1984 technology:

The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.

Paper.

Tags: , ,

Posted on July 15, 2026 at 7:04 AM • 13 Comments

Comments

Brian • July 15, 2026 8:51 AM

This is of course, still Opt-In… and since out fearless leaders will Never pass data privacy legislation, the masses will blindly connect their new-fangled devices to the WWW and the battle will be lost yet again.

Clive Robinson • July 15, 2026 10:13 AM

@ Brian,

With regards,

“since out fearless leaders will Never pass data privacy legislation, the masses will blindly connect their new-fangled devices…”

A little under a century ago Upton Sinclair noted in his book,

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it”

The thing is few “flip the script of that quote to say,

It is easy to get a person to promote something, when their income depends highly on them understanding this.

Or corruption is designed to prosper under politically controlled capitalism.

Something we see with the orange ape that brings so much crony capitalism to the job.

After all why do a days worth of honest work when others see you as a way to “buy protectionism from any liability they might face”?

Snarki, child of Loki • July 15, 2026 11:02 AM

Oh, there will be “privacy legislation”, just as soon as lawmakers are caught in embarrassing stuff by the technology.

Just like “listening in on cellphones”, in the early 90’s.

Rontea • July 15, 2026 2:48 PM

To invent a screen that observes as it entertains is to perfect the art of self-banishment. Each pixel, now a voyeur, abolishes the last refuge of the unnoticed moment. We have conjured our own panopticon, pixel by pixel, and we applaud as it assembles around us. There is no tyranny more exquisite than the one we construct for ourselves, where the gaze we dread is built into the object we desire. The mirror now watches back, and in its silent stare, we recognize the futility of all escape.

Wannbe Techguy • July 15, 2026 4:07 PM

“Just like “listening in on cellphones”, in the early 90’s.”

No,that’s not possible. The government was trustworthy until Orangeman came along.

V Bush (in spirit) • July 15, 2026 6:03 PM

Imagine a Memex, except in the aggregate, made up of info on the entire population. The government’s Memex. Whose creation, management and selective partial deletion is to be contracted and, in part, subcontracted, as politically expedient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memex

Do the people who invent these things ever regret themselves and their actions?

V Bush (in spirit) • July 15, 2026 10:46 PM

@Tony

Looking into the eyes of a flesh-and-blood human being is different from looking at an image electronically produced on a screen.

In real life, you see the real thing.

You have to assume that what the screen is showing you is an accurate representation of the real thing — no filters, no AI modifications. It’s no more “the real thing” than a photograph or a portrait of someone is the real thing.

Psychologically, I think human beings somehow fall for this.

If you’ve ever wondered if the eyes of a person in a portrait follow you around the room — for example — the portrait is not actually looking at you, even though it’s easy to imagine that it is.

Or, another example, the early work with AI to animate portraits of famous people from history. I confess I was impressed that an old photograph of Abraham Lincoln could be brought to life and made to smile. But that wasn’t actually Lincoln smiling at me.

V Bush (in spirit) • July 15, 2026 11:18 PM

…at the risk of flogging a dead horse

Re: photographs are not “the real thing”

Take the case of Mary Ann Vecchio.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Vecchio

In her Wikipedia article, it explains that she was the 14 year old girl in the famous photograph taken after the Kent State massacre.

That famous photograph has at least two versions. The original, which has the fence post behind her, and a second version which edited the fence post out. See footnote 11 in the Wikipedia article, and the section titled “In popular culture”.

… to quote a poet: believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see

Ad Man • July 16, 2026 4:52 AM

It’s a dream breakthrough for advertisers, people can be monitored in real time for reaction to advertising.

Leave a comment

Blog moderation policy

Login

Allowed HTML <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre> Markdown Extra syntax via https://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.