Smallest Color Picture Ever Printed Fits Inside a Human Hair (www.ethz.ch) 52
Zothecula sends news about the tiniest color picture ever printed. Gizmag reports: "Scientists have created a picture that only fleas could truly appreciate. That's because the inkjet-printed image takes up an area no larger than the cross-section of a human hair. The picture of a few clownfish in their sea anemone home measures just 80 micrometers x 115 micrometers for a total area of 0.0092 square mm. Researchers from ETH Zurich University and the startup Scrona have been named the new holders of the Guinness World Record for the world's smallest inkjet color image, which they created using '3D Nanodrip' printing technology created at ETH Zurich."
Kelly (Score:2)
Kelly and the baby... they'll have something to look at now!
Smallest? (Score:4, Interesting)
The picture of a few clownfish in their sea anemone home measures just 80 m x 115 m
Err...
Re:Smallest? (Score:4, Informative)
It should also be emphasized that it was the smallest ink jet printed picture, because some of these are probably smaller [si.edu].
Re: (Score:1)
> The Slashdot summary removed the "micro" symbol
Brilliant. Just fucking brilliant. So not only are the comments fucked, but they can't even post a story without boning non-ASCII characters.
Get into the 21st century, guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like somebody is having a bad case of the Mondays
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The Slashdot summary removed the "micro" symbol"
Rei doesn't get her thorn, last week I didn't get my A-macron, and now this rinkydink adaptation of Unicode fails at the Greek alphabet too.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey Slashdot! Read this: &MiddleFinger;
Re: (Score:1)
U+1F595
It's actually probably for the best that they don't support Unicode. I mean, really... It's not like we'd do anything useful with it. No, I'd expect the results to be people posting the pile of poop emoji.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Smallest? (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, but think of the size of the "hair" that it fits within.
Nemo? (Score:2)
Why print a picture of a clown fish? I'd have though an image of crabs would be more logical if it's being placed inside a hair.
Re: (Score:2)
I was there (Score:4, Funny)
2015 nears its end (Score:1)
and Slashdot still doesn't support Unicode...
Please fix those Greek SI prefixes.
To boldly go where no unicode has gone before. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want Slashdot with fixed Unicode, HTTPS, and no ads, you know where to find it [soylentnews.org].
Re: (Score:2)
An odd thing to do (Score:2)
A small accomplishment... (Score:2)
One small step for those who like to get small....
Re: (Score:3)
If they figure out how to shrink people, there has to be porn available.
It's actually a life-sized image of your dick.
Okay, not life-sized. But with hardly any magnification....
This should be good for printing organs. (Score:3)
For some time now the medical community has been using inkjet technology, with the ink loaded with live cells, to "seed" 3D printed organ scaffolds with live cells, which then populate, then replace, the scaffold, yielding a live replacement part suitable for implantation. But that depends on the cells' ability to do the fine details of self-organization to handle the small geometry.
It looks like this printer technology could put the cells right where they belong, or pretty much so, enabling the construction of a replacement organ or component in fine detail. Like for kidneys.
Maybe even lay down guides for growing neural interconnections, to get the wiring diagram right. That's getting precariously close to being able to reanimate cryonics patients by (probably destructively) scanning the details of the neural interconnections and other stored state of the nervous system, then building a working brain (with freezing damage and the like repaired) with an accurate and functional instance of the original mind in it.
This news flash just in: (Score:2)
Scientists invent a way to troll their fellow scientists with a new uber-high-resolution inkjet printing technique capable of printing "The Game" small enough to be seen only under a microscope
When she asked for pix of my organ... (Score:2)
...she didn't say I had to include the scale.
NWA or (Score:1)
and still... (Score:2)
Ushering in the age (Score:1)
of cootietainment, cootvertising, and cootolingiustic programming.
Studies have shown that people with happy cooties are 30% happier than people without cooties, and 70% happier than people with unhappy cooties.
Now we can entertain your cooties or sell them nanoproducts -- or march them away like the Pied Piper, if for some reason you would prefer to be cootie-free than to have the easy and affordable happiness bonus.
smallest possible pixel? (Score:1)
With interpixel distance = wavelength of visible light, is this the smallest possible scale for a visible color image? There are tricks [popsci.com] to see slightly smaller pixels with a light microscope, but I guess not much smaller.
Ah, there he is! (Score:2)
Sneaky bastard, that Nemo.
Very Impressive (Score:2)
The image posted in the article seems to be the output of some kind of scanning microscope (note the vertical scan lines). Perhaps a 3-channel confocal "optical" microscope, which scans the image separately with red, green and blue laser beams, then combines them into a final image (like a "color" TV image). So it's really a false-color rendering of 3 mono-chrome images (but "true" color in the sense that each beam captures the actual color response of the inks in the printed image (like a TV etc).
The artic
Love the science on the linked page (Score:2)
requiring a special microscope to be viewed.
WTF is a "special microscope"? What a shit article.
Requires a special microscope to be viewed (Score:3)