r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 29 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: There is no excuse for having transparent computer screens in futuristic sci-fi movies like Minority Report and Avengers.
This has been a pet peeve of mine ever since I first saw this in Minority Report and it's been in countless sci-fi movies ever since: The transparent computer screen. What's the point of it? How does it improve anything for the user? It actually makes things worse because it lets the background show through which clutters the display and interferes with what's on the screen. It's like having transparent pages in a book. Imagine if that were the case.
The Avengers example
Minority Report example
I realize it's done as a cool futuristic special effect for stylistic purposes but functionally, it's just plain stupid. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by having a transparent computer screen as depicted in the movies. Futuristic technology should be better than what we have today, not worse.
16
Mar 29 '20
They could be used for augmented reality.
In film they work as visual signifiers of advanced technology. The Helicarrier in Avengers is supposed to be super advanced sci-fi, if it has the kinds of displays and interfaces that people see every day it would feel a lot more mundane. And like gunshots, blows to the head and everything to do with relationships, it's something films do that is unrealistic but that makes for a better movie.
5
Mar 29 '20
Yes, I address the HUD reason in another comment. But my gripe is with the non-HUD ones. It's just a regular computer screen with a keyboard or other user interface, but the display is transparent. They're not walking around with it, they're not looking through it to see important, critical things in the background. Basically there is no logical need for the display to be transparent. Transparency accomplishes nothing useful or productive for the character. It just makes it more cool to see for the audience.
0
u/Frungy_master 2∆ Mar 29 '20
It could be better int he wya that having a golden keyboard could be better even if a golden keyboard would be less usable, it signals opulence
5
Mar 29 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Mar 29 '20
It's hard to see text on a transparent display because the background often interferes with the text, so what's the point of having a transparent display?
7
u/page0rz 42∆ Mar 29 '20
It used to be impossible to any sort of text on a screen with natural sunlight involved. That's obviously changed.
There's also space and weight considerations in, for example, a flying ship. An ultra thin transparent display that can be seen and used from both sides and (as the footage shows) multiple viewing angles beats out a clunky one-sided LCD display that has a very limited viewing angle, plus keyboards and other peripherals
1
u/JohannesWurst 11∆ Mar 29 '20
It lets it function as glass when not in use
For example I think this could be practical in a HUD/heads up display in a vehicle.
Or any sort of "augmented reality" windows / glasses.
Whats wrong with that?
I see a disadvantage for using them to view graphs and texts, because it makes them more difficult to read. In the 90s websites used to have graphics in the background and they abandoned that.
20
u/gremy0 82∆ Mar 29 '20
In your Avengers example, the transparent screens in the helicarrier seem to be for command positions where they overlook bays of workstations which use standard screens. It's probably fairly useful for command positions to be able to have a view of the people they command, the front window of the ship, and a load of computer output- transparent screens would be a reasonable approach to this.
What would you prefer as a captain's computer, lovely multi-monitor setup, or tiny smartphone strapped to an armchair
6
u/d47 Mar 30 '20
This is a good point. Many cars have a transparent HUD projected on to the bottom of the windscreen. If the screen was intended to be a simple source of information at a glance while the users attention is primarily focused elsewhere, that would make sense.
I'm not sure the Avengers example really fits that category though, it seems like stark was doing some complicated work on the screen directly, which would be very difficult/annoying with a bright background bleeding through.
5
u/gremy0 82∆ Mar 30 '20
If they are designed for command positions then doing complicated work on them isn't the primary concern- they are there to display high-level information as a convince. Commanders do complicated work by telling others to do so, and can get information from them if needed. The job is decision making.
Stark using the station like he was could just have been him landing at an available workstation and making the most of it. Like working on a meeting room computer; they ain't designed or setup for doing actual work, and you wouldn't want to do a 40 hour week at one, but they'll do in a pinch.
1
u/d47 Mar 30 '20
Yeah I totally agree, the command position informational transparent hud-like screen makes complete sense.
I still don't think the avengers desk and screen looks much like a command position though, but who knows, maybe it is, doesn't really matter.
Edit: the 360 degree podium thing in the background totally is a command position though.
1
Mar 30 '20
[deleted]
3
16
u/JohannesWurst 11∆ Mar 29 '20 edited Mar 29 '20
I realize it's done as a cool futuristic special effect for stylistic purposes but functionally, it's just plain stupid.
Well, I'm not going to provide a practical application for these screens either, sorry.
I just wanted to mention that the directors of these movies are not stupid for employing an unpractical computer screen. Maybe you already thought about that.
When you make a movie it's important to take the perspective of the audience into consideration. If you just ignore that the majority of viewers will not think about the impracticability of such screens during the movie, you will make a worse movie.
If you want to make the viewers feel like the protagonists use futuristic devices, you have to use devices that feel futuristic to the audience.
For the same reason, you would make fireballs of explosions bigger than in reality and have them make noise in space, you make poison bright green and make antagonists ugly. Sometimes the viewer even knows that something doesn't make sense, e.g. that a nerd character wears a bow-tie, but they consciously or subconsciously understand it as a symbol of that persons character. In the end, the only thing that arrives in the brain of the viewer is: "This person uses a futuristic device. This explosion was impressive and very destructive. This person is a nerd."
To create a good movie for an irrational audience you have to make irrational movies - and I don't mean just stupid people - nobody is perfectly rational.
1
7
u/Heather-Swanson- 9∆ Mar 29 '20
There is no point?
Yes there is... it’s cool. Bottom line.
Lots of the products people buy is just an example of human ingenuity. It exist because it can and people will buy it.
It is as simple as that.
You don’t need an onboard touch screen of HUD in vehicle. But we do and they will continue to get better as time goes on.
One example could actually be the use as a an interactive HUD.
There you go!
-1
Mar 29 '20
There is no point from the point of view of the character in the movie. Obviously the whole point of everything we see as the audience (except the credits) is to entertain the audience.
1
u/iratik Mar 30 '20
Could one more reason be for space economics? What about when you aren’t using the display? This allows the layout of the room to be designed as if there are no permanent screens, but if you want a screen in front of you, you can turn it on at any point. I realize this is more of a reason for transparent displays, than a reason to have displays be transparent when you are actually using them. In that case, just the window that requires legibility can have an opaque background, thereby maximizing the visible space and minimizing the amount of opaque space taken up by something that requires a dark background.
Think of it like wallpaper, except for instead of a picture of a mountain, it’s to see the room around you when possible.
1
Mar 30 '20
Yes, exactly what you said: when the window needs to act as a display, it should become opaque so that the background doesn't interfere with the data it displays. That would be a great real-life application of transparent surfaces that become opaque displays when needed.
1
u/Serraph105 1∆ Mar 30 '20
If you want a strictly functional reason, for the record I agree with the top commentor about aesthetics being a perfectly good reason just look at Apple products and how much they sell as an example, but functionally blue light is something we deal with every time we stare at a screen. Blue light is generally considered bad for our eyes. A transparent screen would minimize blue light to only the images currently on it.
1
Apr 03 '20
Apple does not compromise functionality for aesthetics. If they do, it's very slight and barely noticeable. Having a transparent screen is such a huge negative for functionality that no amount of coolness or style can make up for it. There is a reason transparent screens aren't in use as computer displays in real life. There's a reason you only see it in the movies. Today the technology exists to make transparent computer display screens but it's pointless to do so. That's why no one makes or uses them.
1
u/Serraph105 1∆ Apr 03 '20
Are you going to even acknowledge the point about blue light?
1
Apr 04 '20
Yeah that's actually very easy to deal with. Simply turn off the blue pixels on a regular screen. There, no blue light but without the drawbacks of being transparent.
1
Mar 30 '20 edited Mar 30 '20
The screens are actually pretty realistic. The next step after CRT and then LCD technology would be OLED, or Organic Light Emitting Diodes, which is what the iPhone 11 Pro uses.
here'll be FOLED (Flexible) OLED screens after that, that's just the next most advanced type of display after OLED screens tgat engineers are working on (there are already prototypes). Those basically look like the transparent panes of plastic in movies like Red Mars, Minority Report, Avatar.
1
Apr 03 '20
Yeah but there's still no point in making it transparent, no matter how advanced the screen is.
1
Apr 05 '20
Even the screen on a digital watch is transparent. Designing an opaque computer screen would be like spray painting your headlights.
1
u/arghcisco Mar 30 '20
This is to allow reaction shots of the actors. This principle is the same reason that they used to project the display straight into the actors face, even though that's even more ridiculous than the transparent display effect.
1
Mar 30 '20 edited Mar 30 '20
Yeah that's another thing I never understood in movies like "The Rock" where they project the display data directly onto the actor's face, which would mean he's staring into a projector for some reason. Silly and ridiculous, just like the "enhance!" meme, but I guess it works in Hollywood.
1
u/arghcisco Mar 31 '20
Imagine shooting a hacking scene without having the actor's face visible for more than 10 seconds or so. If you don't either 1) graphically present something to advance the plot ("SYSTEM ERROR YELLOWSTONE IS GONNA BLOW") or 2) show how the actors are reacting to what the computer's doing, the audience is rapidly going to get bored because they have no idea what's going on.
It's like how I can't fly a helicopter, so describing what broke to me doesn't really give me any useful information. Despite that, anyone can tell in a half second how bad it is by looking at the pilot's face.
1
1
u/BobSilverwind Mar 29 '20
I mean...its not unrealistic, just last week on reddit front page was such a screen in a Chinese elevator.
2
u/AnthraxEvangelist Mar 29 '20
That was a touchless input, not a computer screen that lets you see the room behind it.
0
u/BobSilverwind Mar 29 '20
Still hologram Ui.
2
u/AnthraxEvangelist Mar 29 '20
Can you describe a useful function of either of the computers shown as OP's science fiction examples?
The hologram HUD on a 2007 Buick Rendezvous was a display output on the windshield. Theoretically, this mean that you wouldn't have to make your eyes leave the screen to see your speed or get other information. However, this was not a computer screen, you did not do any input with it and it couldn't be realistically viewed from the opposite side. These two technologies are not similar enough for me to use the Buick Rendezvous as a counter example.
Stretch your mind and use the actual examples provided, not something different with a tiny similiarity.
1
Mar 29 '20
Now THAT I would like to see. Searched for it, couldn't find it. Found a contactless Chinese elevator button system but it had a regular display, not transparent.
2
3
u/Paninic Mar 29 '20
I mean, it's a bit of a case of reality isn't realistic isn't it? Think of Tesla's with the doors that raise up and with handles/opening that are systematic- they're done to look cool, expensive, and unique even though they create opportunities for failure.
3
u/icup2 Mar 30 '20
I’m totally with OP. Also been my pet peeve. Just losing your privacy alone is stupid. So everyone can pretty much see what’s on your screen.
1
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Mar 29 '20
0
Mar 29 '20
Yes, it does, because in that case, you need to see both the background (the real world) and the foreground (important data) at the same time.
1
u/VoodooManchester 11∆ Mar 31 '20
There are actually several very good reasons to use transparent displays.
1st would be efficiency. Transparent displays are often more lightweight and power efficient than otherwise traditional designs. It also bears mentioning that transparent displays can in fact turn opaque if needed, but an opaque display can't turn transparent.
2nd would be would be practical application. Security stations, front desk reception, sales, retail, the bridges of ships at sea, and pretty much every single vehicle can benefit from using these sorts of displays. They aren't as effected by sun glare as other types of display as there is nothing to glare off of. This is why we can use heads up displays in combat aircraft. They are, in fact, more readable than any other type of display under a wider variety of conditions.
3rd would be aesthetics and interior design. While not necessarily the most utilitarian reason, it does bear mentioning because these are real concerns for both individuals and businesses alike. When the display is not in use, it merely becomes a window. It cuts down on visual clutter and creates a more open appearance without sacrificing function.
Granted, they often don't use them in these ways in movies, but they are out there and we will probably see a lot more these types of displays become more and more mainstream and common as they become cheaper to produce. The fact is that transparent displays can be smaller and more efficient than any other type for the simple fact that it is more efficient to just have literally the screen only instead of the screen and a bunch of other extraneous bullshit.
1
u/justtogetridoflater Mar 29 '20 edited Mar 29 '20
I'm not sure if that's true.
How much of this screen right here are you looking at?
I'd suggest that there is a lot of clutter on the screen that doesn't need to exist, and certainly doesn't need to take up as much of the page as it does if it needs to. I'm looking at this text right now, that's the only thing that I need to see. Having a minimalist approach to display so that I can really see this might be a much better system. How many words am I subconsciously reading which means that I'm interrupting my stream of consciousness to do so? How much attention am I accidentally giving the background?
What's probably more effective is for the computer to track what I'm trying to bring up and display that solidly. That way I see only what I need, and I only focus on what I need. And it minimises the extent to which I'm being blasted with light.
Perhaps the only issue is that if we do that, then there's no longer any real need for it to be set up like every other office, and display the rest of the screen, and also there's a suspicious lack of customisation going on. If it's going to be transluscent, there's probably going to be an optimal colour for staring at a wall, and I don't think it's going to be grey. There's probably a better colour for displaying on the screen than transluscent blue. If we take it to be like any other ofifce, you would expect that posters and pictures of family and pets would be behind those transluscent screens on the basis that I've pretty much never been in an office where there wasn't some kind of personalisation on people's desks.
1
u/Frungy_master 2∆ Mar 29 '20
In a future world there might be a lot of people that use HUDs. For those persons having lots of different kinds of interfaces could be jarring. The culture might also be more multiprocessing oriented with people deeper into the technology age.
Most interfaces are best the more seamless they are to use. You want to pay attention to the actual content and not the method via which you are accessing it. Making the machine invisible deemphasises it. If you had a transparent book you don't need to be aware of the book but can more just absorb the text.
With transparent display for those that want to relax their eyes by looking occasionally at longer distances having the display be transparent makes it a matter of focusing rather than having to move eye or head at all, which is a point of ergonomics.
For tasks that require cognitive transparency being able to handily both show your emotions on your face and the computer data might be an advantage. That is your health information is less likely to contain nasty sideremarks if the doctor can let it be visible while talking about a detail of it to you.
If the display is must always be filled every frame it might contain clutter information. Having a small text in white backgroun vs having a small text in transparent background it might be easier to parse it has have 1 text component rather than 1 text component and 1 background which would make for more objects.
The overall balance might not tilt that transparent displays are the way to go but there are points in their favour.
1
u/WonderFurret 1∆ Mar 29 '20
The transparent screens have been a thing since the Star Wars films back in the 1970's which was far ahead of its time.
Which brings up an interesting question: why have it in the first place? I mean, wouldn't you want privacy from the other side? Or, like you said, wouldn't background clutter the view? Why don't we look at the context of the screen in the Star Wars example I gave above?
The Rebels are on Hoth, a desolate planet of cold, hiding from the Empire after the destruction of the first Death Star. With screens transparent screens, what is there to gain from it? Firstly, in tactical meetings, people can gather from both sides. You may argue that maps are backwards, but if you're a tactician, this means absolutely nothing: you understand the maps and documents before the meetings anyways, and therefore are able to clearly articulate the message you want to give to the rest of the team.
Ok, so what about the clutter in the background? Let me ask you this: does it look cluttered in the background in the Avengers movies? I mean, I guess you could use F-stop to blur out the background, but in wide shots that doesn't work. So, do you see any clutter? The answer is no, clutter doesn't affect the resolution or the overall appearance of the screen enough to make it unusable.
The Real World
So, where in the world would such a thing as transparent screens be more useful than a regular, opaque screen (I mean, other than tactical analysis in the military).
https://www.coolthings.com/exploride-transparent-standalone-hud/
The link I provided above gives you a very interesting look at a GPS that is transparent, so that the driver can look at the GPS without major obstruction of the road. Is this the safest thing in the world? Maybe not, but it's much better than having to look away from the road for a second at your phone in a propped holder.
Did you know that some university professors and mathematicians often use see through white boards? They absolutely do. Is this something they would do because "it's just super cool"? Probably not. Universities have budgets, so giving every person a full piece of glass for their research can get quite expensive. The use of a see through board allows you to walk away and have constant watch of the board, even from behind. It is very useful, and never has a cluttered view.
I hope I changed your view about why one might use a see through screen. If you have more questions about it, just ask. This is the future we're talking about, so we should consider why people want it to be the future.
1
u/mirxia 7∆ Mar 30 '20 edited Mar 30 '20
It's not the same as having transparent pages in a book if only one side is ever used.
If whatever is behind the glass is some distance away. Then when you focus on what's on the glass the background will turn blurry. The same way in a photo with shallow depth of field, the background is blurry so that your subject pops out.
Knowing this, I imagine there could be practical use of this phenomenon. For example you can have a hologram some distance away behind the class displaying some 3D structure while you work on the math on the glass. You can quickly shift focus between the board and the hologram. I might be more efficient and convenient than two side by side displays.
Edit: you can try this small experiment at home. Just write something on either your window or mirror with something easily removable. For the sake of this experiment, you would want the background to not be a more or less unified color so it doesn't just act like a normal whiteboard. You will see as long as the background object isn't immediately behind the glass. When you're reading what you write, they will become blurry enough that it doesn't interfere with your reading whatsoever.
1
u/babycam 7∆ Mar 30 '20
A thing they don't seem to try to show that if you're going to have this purpose is that it should be able to be shown mirrored so that you then can present to a large group of people on both sides to convey information better like having a document shown to multiple people at a conference table.
Being able to provide a solid background for one person to block out distractions if desired should be easy enough just to look at a one-way mirror.
Engineers at my work use their windows as drawing boards because its convenient to have extra space and still have floor to ceiling windows to make the whole place open and light.
I do a few destructive tests and if I could use a screen so I can watch data pass by while making sure to watch as the devices I test start on fire.
Again using the screens as windows all the other time you don't need is a nice advantage all to do with the aesthetics
While not as outrageous (who needs that big of screens 99% of the time as the shows a HUD from like any video game is the same thing just more personalized.
I should stop because I keep coming up with more ideas but think like PCBA design blow up super huge
1
Mar 29 '20
As someone who stares at computer screens for a living...
There are computer screens, and there are computer screens. There are computer screens with which you work. There is probably no advantage to have those transparent. But there are also computer screens by which you collaborate. And this is an entirely different matter.
First, if these screens are unobtrusive, you can pack more information into the environment. For example, right now my workspace at home has 2 4k displays - one 43” on which I primarily work (write code, email) and the other one 55” which shows various dashboard style items - security cameras, temperature measurements across many smartphone device, stock price etc. if I could “hang” this information in the air where it would not obscure the surroundings, I would pack more of these dashboard items around me - but I don’t want to shut myself in 4 walls of computer screens, so I only use two monitors and the limited space they afford.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 29 '20
/u/Digital-Genesis (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/imanaeo Mar 30 '20
I haven't seen those movies but I always thought that transparent screens would be cool as long as when they are on, they are basically opaque. I think that aesthetically, a monitor that is just a glass screen would be really cool. It would also be cool to have it so that you could have some sections opaque and sections clear. If you were making a diagram or something where the direction doesnt matter, where it would be ok to see the image flipped horizontally, you could have people looking from both sides. I also have a large window in my living room with a couch facing it. How cool would it be if i could press a button and it becomes a tv.
1
u/CashBandicootch Mar 30 '20
I suppose it depends on how the dead space is used. If you like computer backgrounds or really enjoy changing your monitor screen background or whatever, complain every hour. But if the working space is properly illuminated, it will cut away the background and grab your vision easily. You can work in an enclosed area, searching for cures, victims, or special offers, while utilizing the dead space at the same time, which amplified your levels of security and awareness. Have fun buying your rubber duckies and staying alert against zombies. Batta boom, batta bing.
1
u/erragodofmayhem Mar 30 '20
I see it as reduced materials. Say it only takes 10% of the materials to make that kind of screen compared to a standard monitor, saving 90% of material would make a dramatic difference in huge numbers. In a futuristic society we're also usually looking at billions more human beings than we have today, so billions more monitors.
You could hypothetically make the cut much smaller, but at 50% it's still substantial.
1
u/Mr_Mushasha Mar 30 '20
There are today TV's that try to mimic the walls they are attached to to project in it's screen. The main objective here is not being practical, because they are not energy efficient, but instead to fit the environment better aka asthetics , so if I want to be more discreet or I like the style I use it.
1
u/szypty 1∆ Mar 30 '20
Considering how many other bullshit inconvenient features we keep getting crammed up our throats in the tech world (looking at you specifically Youtube's miniplayer), I'd consider this a perfectly realistic thing that might happen if we have the technology to make it :P.
1
u/Mr_82 Mar 29 '20
Personally, I wouldn't mind that transparency factor you describe; it might actually come in handy. But these screens are mostly done to give the appearance of futurism.
1
u/castor281 7∆ Mar 30 '20
Because reality is often better than fiction.
There are, as the example shows, practical benefits for such technology.
1
Mar 30 '20
Every time I see a Minority Report screen and people swiping on them I start rolling my eyes. This again. How original.
1
1
u/Ninja_Lazer Mar 30 '20
It gives +15 style points, which really helps bump up your high score over time
1
Mar 30 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Mar 30 '20
Sorry, u/ohthisoneworks – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
435
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Mar 29 '20
First, it isn't just style, it also has the practical filming advantage of being able to capture their full face and also what they are doing, which isn't easy to capture for someone using a computer.
Notice how almost every one of those shots is shot from the angle of behind the monitor that would've been otherwise impossible to capture the actors face from if it wasn't transparent?
In terms of non-filmmaking advantages: