The cost to repair your Nokia 9 PureView screen totally depends on which method you choose to fix it up. Few of the methods are like getting it fixed from authorized Nokia service center or getting it fixed by a local repair shop in your area or to do it yourself.
* The 1st option is to go to authorized Nokia service center. They will charge a hefty amount on the same, but this will ensure 100% genuine replacement screen with warranty. Means this is the only method to ensure that you will get 100% genuine original screen and will get some limited time warranty on the part.
* The 2nd option is to go to some local mobile repair shop in your area, where you can get your Nokia 9 PureView repaired for a better price deal but this wo not ensure good quality part and an unreliable warranty. Just make sure that you do not get fooled by a shop who claims to have a original screen for a higher price. Do you really think he can have tie ups with Nokia and get original genuine parts from them? The only way these shops can have a original screen is if they took out the screen from some other phone.
Do It Yourself * The 3rd and the best option is to get a high quality replacement LCD Screen with Touch Digitizer for your Nokia 9 PureView from a reliable online store (like maxbhi.com) and get it fitted from the local repair shop for just 200-300 Rs. This way you will get a good quality display screen with good prices and a reliable warranty. You can even try to do this yourself with the help of youtube videos and phone opening toolkit for Nokia 9 PureView.
As per our research, Nokia 9 PureView screen replacement should cost something around 3200 Rupees in India.
Given current technology, could TV display screens double as video camera sensors?
Somewhat.What is marketed as "LED TV" is LCD with a LED backlight. There are very few elements and they are placed behind (or to the sides of) a diffuser, so they wo not be able to sense anything more than the room's general illumination level.Some high-end LCD TVs do have a full-array backlight with enough elements to potentially make out a bit more information than just general illumination. These are generally even more rare. OLED TVs have individual pixel elements, and they already have some means for recording the aging of individual elements as it occurs. Still, any image you get would have very little fidelity due to the lack of any means of focusing the light. You would not be getting a video. But, if every current from the backlight was recorded, it's probably enough data to forensically distinguish between the patterns of incoming light when someone is in the room watching the TV, and when they are not. After all, is not that something the dystopian society would care about?Of course, current TVs could already be recording you with good resolution by simply replacing the IR sensor, used for the remote, with a pinhole IR camera. It would keep working as an IR sensor, so no one would know the difference unless they disassembled the TV and closely inspected the components, specifically looking for a surveillance device
Can camerasdisplay screens with window/mirror-like optical behaviour exist?
Transmitting each individual photon is infeasible, given the amount of computation that would be required, but technology for capturing some information about incoming light direction already exists and is used in the Lytro "light field" camera.The corresponding light field display does not exist, as far as I am aware. The Lytro system uses a conventional display with postprocessing that lets you adjust focal point, depth of field, etc. after the photo has been taken.
(PDF) Liquid crystal display screens as stimulators for visually evoked potentials: Flash effect due to delay in luminance changes
diffuser in an above-mentioned way, and third, we check the flashing effect after reducing the contrast of However, when using another LCD monitor Tokyo, Japan), the contrast must be reduced to 65 % to completely remove the luminance artifact and such contrast does not match the ISCEV standard. An alternative way might be to decrease the checksize. For example, if the checksize can be reduced so that one pixel equals one check, then one cannot resolve the pattern when one is sufficiently far away from the screen. In that case, no VEP should be obtained. But, due to the luminance artifact, there should be a sizable VEP, a flash VEP. Given this, the VEP amplitude can be affected depending on the checksize, but it is minimal for standard check sizes. One of the ways to minimize the flash effect might be to optimize the contrast of the checkerboard luminance. The transient change of the luminance is constant depending on the contrast of the checker- board and specific to the LCD monitor. The latency delay in the p-VEP is also constant although it did not reduction in the contrast of the checkerboard to 81 % still complies with the ISCEV standards (checker- However, a reduction in the contrast may not eliminate the flash effect in all LCD monitors in the market. Further investigations on how to eliminate the flash We did not record pattern ERGs (PERGs). However, might be easily contaminated by flash responses. In other words, PERGs might be better s iological indicator of flash effects. And for those who want to record PERGs with LCD screens, a correspond- ing validation with PERGs is necessary. In conclusion, the p-VEP waveforms are affected by a delay in the reversal phase of a checkerboard might be reduced by optimizing the contrast of the LCD for pattern stimulation is comparable to the ated on a CRT screen, when the LCD specific parameters such as input lag and response time are Acknowledgments Support for this study was provided by Researches on Sensory and Communicative Disorders from the Conflict of interest H. Funada is an employee of Tomey Corp., Japan. None of other authors has any commercial Fig. 8 Comparisons of each parameter between the p-VEP recorded using different checkerboard contrasts of the LCD. a No significant difference was found in the P100 amplitude between the responses elicited by 81 % contrast stimulus compared to that by 97 % stimulus. c No significant difference was observed in the N75 and P100 latency between the VEPs elicited by 81 and 97 % contrast