×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scientists Claim Breakthrough On Holographic Display

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the rampant-optimism dept.

Television 123

SpuriousLogic writes to tell us that University of Arizona researchers claim to have broken a barrier in holographic technology by creating an updatable, three-dimensional display with memory. While the existing model is only able to update once every couple of minutes, and isn't particularly suited for 3d images, it is certainly a step in the right direction. "Peyghambarian is also optimistic that the technology could reach the market within five to ten years. He said progress towards a final product should be made much more quickly now that a rewriting method had been found. However, it is fair to say not everyone is as positive about this prospect as Peyghambarian. Lecturer in Electronic Engineering at Bangor University in Wales, Dr Justin Lawrence, told CNN small steps were always being made on technology like 3D holograms, but, he couldn't see it being ready for the market in the next ten years."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

123 comments

Another revolutionary technology... (5, Insightful)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277139)

Another revolutionary technology that will be adopted first by the porn industry.

... for our new holographic masters! (3, Funny)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277201)

I saw it on Star Trek, it must be true!

Re:... for our new holographic masters! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25277591)

huzza! an olographic tv! only with still images. oh, and not in 3d! we have those here, we call them photoframes

Re:Another revolutionary technology... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25277461)

Untrue! It will have to have mainstream usage before the porn industry spends a bunch of cash on it. For fairly obvious reasons.

Re:Another revolutionary technology... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25277503)

Historically, porn comes before widespread mainstream usage, at the point where X is still a niche product..

Re:Another revolutionary technology... (2, Insightful)

MaxwellEdison (1368785) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277617)

Porn is usually the deciding factor between two competing technologies, rather than the initial implementation of a technology. It could certainly be argued that porn would be one of the first supporters of the installed base. But remember, it wasn't the internet begat porn but personal computers begat the internet begat internet porn begat the PC explosion. And then came goatse.

Re:Another revolutionary technology... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25277869)

The circle is complete?

God, I hope not.

Re:Another revolutionary technology... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 5 years ago | (#25280687)

"And then came goatse."

The circle is complete?

That's the funniest thing I've read all week. :-P

What about porn games? (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25278819)

Porn is usually the deciding factor between two competing technologies

Counterexample: video game consoles vs. PCs running Windows. The consoles have no pornographic games, yet PC gaming hasn't slaughtered console gaming. Why is this?

Re:What about porn games? (1)

Bragador (1036480) | more than 5 years ago | (#25280909)

The consoles have no pornographic games?

Hehe, don't be so innocent...

Here are two examples (not porn):

Osouji Sentai Clean Keeper [play-asia.com] for the wii

and

Doki_Doki_Majo_Shinpan! [dokimajo.com] for the DS.

Also, don't forget about the unofficial illegal porn games for consoles...

Re:What about porn games? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25281501)

Here are two examples (not porn):

Japanese erotic games [wikipedia.org] are a special case. Let me rephrase:

Counterexample: North American video game consoles vs. PCs running U.S. English Windows. The consoles have no pornographic games, yet PC gaming hasn't slaughtered console gaming in North America. Why is this?

Also, don't forget about the unofficial illegal porn games for consoles...

Are you talking about a handful of titles from decades ago (like Custer's Revenge on Atari 2600 and Panesian's NES games) or a whole thriving industry?

Re:Another revolutionary technology... (3, Insightful)

bendodge (998616) | more than 5 years ago | (#25278831)

I don't understand people claiming that porn created the computing universe in 6 kilobytes.

Computers proliferated when they became cheap enough for the average person to afford (IBM PC) and useful enough for the average person to want (taxes, word processing, games, etc). Sure, some people probably bought Internet service primarily to access porn, but I don't think that had much effect on the overall computer boom. Computers boomed like cars boomed: someone made it cheap and people saw everyday uses for them.

Now, one might make an argument about porn boosting search engines (look at graphs of popular terms over time), but certainly not the whole shebang.

Re:Another revolutionary technology... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25277535)

another revolutionary technology that will be ready for the market in 10 year!

Re:Another revolutionary technology... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25277765)

If we're lucky.

Re:Another revolutionary technology... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25278575)

Oh boy! now that's a line to entice me to invest in this new tech.

Cool now for the real use (1, Funny)

areusche (1297613) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277155)

When will I be able to have a FREE holographic lap dance?

Re:Cool now for the real use (1, Informative)

gapagos (1264716) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277183)

You know.... a real lap dance would probably cost less than that holographic machine.

Re:Cool now for the real use (3, Funny)

areusche (1297613) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277207)

But if you use the machine about 5,000 times would the cost of 5,000 lap dances be a lot less then the holographic machine?

Re:Cool now for the real use (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277411)

Not to mention you a machine won't smack you for roughing up the suspect.

Re:Cool now for the real use (2, Funny)

gapagos (1264716) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277777)

That's like saying you'd rather play Need for Speed: Porsche Unleashed instead of driving a real Porsche because you don't risk getting a speeding ticket.

I know we were lacking a car analogy somewhere.

Re:Cool now for the real use (2, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25278421)

You've gotta admit, smashing into things in VR is a lot more enjoyable than smashing into things in real life. Or will the next release of NFS require you to spend several hours arguing with police, getting repair estimates, and submitting an insurance claim every time you have an accident?

Re:Cool now for the real use (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 5 years ago | (#25279601)

Or will the next release of NFS require you to spend several hours arguing with police, getting repair estimates, and submitting an insurance claim every time you have an accident?

Nah. SecuROM handles that part.

Re:Cool now for the real use (1)

tyrione (134248) | more than 5 years ago | (#25280231)

You know.... a real lap dance would probably cost less than that holographic machine.

I'm pretty sure the parent is inferring a clothes off experience.

Isn't particularly suited for 3d images (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25277169)

Other than that small issue, sounds like a winner.

Re:Isn't particularly suited for 3d images (4, Funny)

Amarok.Org (514102) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277287)

See my sig...

Boo! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25278207)

Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?

Too soon!

Re:Isn't particularly suited for 3d images (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25278697)

I've always enjoyed your sig, but I don't understand how it relates to this story. Can you explain?

Re:Isn't particularly suited for 3d images (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25281641)

I don't get it...

Pigs and Sheep! Sheeps and pigs! Peeps and Shigs! Ships and Peegs!

Re:Isn't particularly suited for 3d images (2, Funny)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277337)

Well, in the 3 minutes it takes to change images, just imagine you've walked around to a different side, then the picture can show that. Voila!

3d Projectors (-1)

They_Call_Me_Spanky (83478) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277179)

I've always imagined that the invention of 3d projectors would totally revolutionize my table top Dungeons & Dragons games.

Using a standard projector add a lot of visual aid in the game ...
http://www.penpaperpixel.org/tutorials/tabletopprojection/ [penpaperpixel.org]

But by including animated 3d projection would get people away from a console and play the games on the living room floor.

Re:3d Projectors (1)

MaxwellEdison (1368785) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277661)

How do you keep the Cheetos paste off the lens? I kid, I've rolled a d20 many times myself. And a large scale implementation like this could spur tabletop gaming from a backroom pastime in comics/hobby shops to something more on par with laser tag. Or both if its Shadowrun.

Re:3d Projectors (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277851)

And a large scale implementation like this could spur tabletop gaming from a backroom pastime in comics/hobby shops to something more on par with laser tag. Or both if its Shadowrun.

You realize if this works out, we're on the verge of being overrun by LARPers. [wikipedia.org]

RUN! FLEE!

What's this 'console' you speak of? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 5 years ago | (#25278093)

But by including animated 3d projection would get people away from a console and play the games on the living room floor.

We used to do that without any electronic gear - just a set of dice, some rulebooks, and maybe some notepads. Oh, and pizza.

Was that just the poor-kids' D&D? I can't imagine any of these electronics improve the fun.

ahhh, those magic words... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25277181)

five to ten years.
-> hot air

Every couple of minutes? (4, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277185)

It can only update every couple of minutes? Not to worry, Lucas will stretch out Episode XXIV accordingly.

Re:Every couple of minutes? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277265)

Updating every couple of minutes is still plenty of time for 3d porn.

Re:Every couple of minutes? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25278205)

Ah, I could finish before the update

Re:Every couple of minutes? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277601)

It can only update every couple of minutes? Not to worry, Lucas will stretch out Episode XXIV accordingly.

And don't forget about the Episode I remake. It may actually be more watchable that round, giving us time to mentally recover between the frames of Jar-Jar.

PC monitors next (1)

Coraon (1080675) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277191)

actually I'm waiting for the pc market...I want to walk around through the world of warcraft and stab noobs in a upclose and personal way.

3D Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25277193)

I can't wait to see those 2 girls and that one cup in 3d!!!

Who? (2, Insightful)

Cutie Pi (588366) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277227)

Who is this Dr. Justin Lawrence and why is he being cited as the authoritative naysayer for this technology? He doesn't seem to have any reasons to be unimpressed other than this cliche:

"It's one thing to demonstrate something in a lab but it's another thing to be able to produce it cheaply and efficiently enough to distribute it to the mass market," Lawrence said.

Re:Who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25277637)

Your objection is clearly meaningless drivel and with the intent to distract from the issues at hand.

Sincerely,

Dr. Frank Engelstein

Re:Who? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25277703)

http://www.eng.bangor.ac.uk/Staff/justin_lawrence.php

http://arrow.dit.ie/scienmas/30/

Anyone who has successfully published a peer-reviewed doctoral dissertation on "optical amplification and lasing in conjugated polymers and novel semiconducting dendrimers and fabrication of wavelength scale microstructure by soft lithography" has my complete respect.

Re:Who? (1)

MaxwellEdison (1368785) | more than 5 years ago | (#25278053)

Anyone that can recite that title from memory would have mine. Clearly another case of me understanding many of those words individually, and then 15 minutes or combining them into a coherent mental image.

Okay, maybe 15 more minutes...

Refresh Rates (4, Funny)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277235)

If it can only refresh every few minutes, it'd be perfect for airing CSPAN, right? I mean, it's not like Congress moves very fast - you really don't need a refresh rate measured in Hz.

And if they got it in 3D... It'd be just like you're there!

Re:Refresh Rates (3, Funny)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277253)

> And if they got it in 3D... It'd be just like you're there!

But why would you want to be?

Re:Refresh Rates (2, Funny)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277335)

And i'ts attitudes like that that'll keep this technology from taking off!

Re:Refresh Rates (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#25278021)

And people from understanding their Government

Re:Refresh Rates (2, Funny)

peragrin (659227) | more than 5 years ago | (#25278425)

you can't understand the government until you become a member of the government. And the first rule of government is to not talk about how the government works.

Re:Refresh Rates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25280575)

Capital Punishment!

(duckandrunforit)

Re:Refresh Rates (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277547)

It would be great for things that are supposed to be slow, like glacial movements, or static, like 3D building plans.

Re:Refresh Rates (1)

MaxwellEdison (1368785) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277759)

Finally something in my arena! I am a designer for a company that uses 3d CAD software for designing our homes. And having worked with very complex 3d wireframes I think a system like this would have little use beyond being a showcase for our already created 3d models. Even if the display were capable of 3d it would add another layer of calculations to a process which already strains our hardware. In short, I'll check back in 15 years to see if its done yet. Bah, its been too long since lunch, my blood sugar is running low and I'm rambling incoherently.

Re:Refresh Rates (2, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 5 years ago | (#25278047)

If it can only refresh every few minutes, it'd be perfect for airing CSPAN, right?

Congress will ban it as the 2-D left-right paradigm suits their purposes quite well.

Re:Refresh Rates (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 5 years ago | (#25279135)

> Congress will ban it as the 2-D left-right paradigm suits their purposes quite well.

Libertarian?

MIT Media Lab has been doing holoTV for 15 years (5, Informative)

peter303 (12292) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277315)

They had live TV, but small images. Unfortunately the head investigator Steve Benten died a few years ago.

Re:MIT Media Lab has been doing holoTV for 15 year (1)

randyest (589159) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277557)

Link? More info? Who was broadcasting holographic images to allow "live TV?" And how would the "lead investigator's" death stop anything (did you mean "researcher?") -- This isn't Japan where people store all the key data in their brains and refuse to write things down. Surely he left notes, no?

HoloTV? (4, Informative)

Animaether (411575) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277647)

"HoloTV" conjures up images of...

- a display much like holograms, but instead with fully moving images (and I don't mean the ones that have moving images when you change the viewing angle)
- a holodeck, but confined to the 'space' of a TV.

Benton et al (mostly et al) did great work, but...
http://people.csail.mit.edu/wojciech/3DTV/index.html [mit.edu] ...it is neither of the above.

A lenticular display is cool, but still depends a lot on the viewing angle, very precise registration, etc.

True '3D TV' is quite a long ways out as of yet.. there are plenty of existing and research methods, but all of them have their caveats that make them nowhere near '3D TV' a la "everything actually looks 3D, from any angle, without special glasses required, and without the surfaces appearing translucent, and with no more extreme requirements than a very high-end regular TV now".

red/blue | red/green methods - no color accuracy, need glasses, not actually 3D (fixed viewpoint)
chromadepth - no color accuracy, need glasses, not actually 3D (fixed viewpoint)
shutter glasses - need glasses (dur), not actually 3D (fixed viewpoint)
polarization - need glasses, not actually 3D (fixed viewpoint)

VR glasses - need the big VR goggles.

Lenticular displays - limited viewing angles, not actually 3D (multiple fixed viewpoints - typically on the horizontal plane, MIT's work has the vertical plane covered a bit as well)

Tracking displays - limited viewing angles and, moreover, limited number of viewers (just one.. the person being tracked. Also not really 3D (fixed viewpoints, but with greater 'fluidity' between viewing angles; no actual depth cues (could be combined with a 'glasses' method to overcome this limitation, however). In theory extensible to spherical displays to provide a - albeit awkward - free-viewpoint display).

Collated displays / array of displays - expensive, limited viewing angles (not as limited as lenticular, but if you look at the side of the array of displays, you're not going to see a whole lot), surfaces appear translucent, color inaccurate the deeper 'in' you look.

Spinning surface displays (in various forms) - noisy (even with the spinning surface encased and usually vacuum-sealed; for resistance purposes as well), flickery, surfaces tend to appear translucent although some level of opacity can be attained.

Making the air explode in gorgeous bursts of luminosity - loud. very, very loud.. zero color, not even greyscale; presuming technique perfected to at least allow greyscale (minor vs major bursts, or frequency bursts), surfaces will still appear translucent.

Of all of the above, Lenticular displays are the most commercially successful *right now*, and they're still not mainstream; that might change as more and more 3D movies come out and they start getting stuck on Blu-Ray/whatever, though.

I get the feeling I missed one, but it's likely to have some of the other usual drawbacks.

Overall, VR goggles give the best experience as long as the content is actually 3D.. but people don't like wearing even the little polarized glasses, nevermind a VR headset.

--

On top of that, though... shooting a movie in a stereoscopic format (glasses) is difficult enough; a lot of movie shots only really 'work' from a single angle - think one actor punching another... move a little right/left and it becomes a lot easier to tell that the guy never actually hit him; gets worse when you add in the original viewing angle and you get full 3D depth cues. That's not to mention any effects that have to get replicated in stereo (double the work; easy if it's a 3D feature film, not so easy if it's live-action and some poor artist has to rotoscope an actor's hair not once, but twice, and with stereoscopic cohesion.
And that's just stereo.. that's not even the common concept of 3D (cameras all around), nevermind full 3D (being able to look all the way around, instead of just orbiting the scene of interest).

No.. it'll be a long, long while more before 'HoloTV' is something we can all talk about the way we did about flatscreen TVs several years back.

Re:MIT Media Lab has been doing holoTV for 15 year (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277709)

Link to info about this please.

Re:MIT Media Lab has been doing holoTV for 15 year (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25280159)

http://www.media.mit.edu/spi/holoVideoAll.htm

This is the work that was started by Benton. Unrelated to the CSAIL work posted above.

DNF? (4, Funny)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277367)

Is this the technology that 3D Realms has been waiting for by delaying Duke Nukem Forever by this long? When it finally does come out, it's going to be awesome!!!!

AGAIN!? (4, Insightful)

AlgorithMan (937244) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277399)

ANOTHER breakthrough!? I'm thrilled!
seriously, how often have we read about holo-TV breakthroughs within the last - say - 15 years?
I stopped believing, although I'd love such technology...

sweet (5, Funny)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277463)

thats about 0.0056 frames per second

still better than crysis on my rig

Re:sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25277549)

For those of you keeping track, that's the funniest post today.

Re:sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25278825)

I've seen the original Quake running on a 386sx-40 (Linux/8mb ram, no math coproc), it was faster than this. Spawn 2 more instances and that would be similar.

Sloppy, soundbite journalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25277511)

Peyghambarian is also optimistic that the technology could reach the market within five to ten years.

"It's one thing to demonstrate something in a lab but it's another thing to be able to produce it cheaply and efficiently enough to distribute it to the mass market,"

Peyghambarian words were "the market" (currently exhibition props and the like), not "the mass market".

Could reach the market in 5-10 years = ... (1)

cpu_fusion (705735) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277687)

Maybe it is just me, but sketpress releases like this are hardly news. Think of every breakthrough you've read about on Slashdot that was supposedly going to be a product in 5 or 10 years. ...

Use 4 monitors...cheaper! (1)

gsgriffin (1195771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277689)

I love the comment that this kind of display is not suited for a 3D image. In other words, all this will do is allow you to see a flat image from any side of it. Uh, make a box with 4 monitors and call it quits. Save a few million in development costs.

Old news (3, Informative)

jonsmirl (114798) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277763)

This news is from February.

More detail here...
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb08/5995 [ieee.org]

Re:Old news (1)

Neanderthal Ninny (1153369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25278959)

I don't think this exactly the same technology and idea. This article seems to appear to focus more on reusable holographic devices and not aimed at fast refreshing TV/movies. However this technology, if advance can used for TV/movies but as it is is replacement for existing film based holographic.

Misunderstandings and Disbeliefs (5, Informative)

JackassJedi (1263412) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277781)

" Lecturer in Electronic Engineering at Bangor University in Wales, Dr Justin Lawrence, told CNN small steps were always being made on technology like 3D holograms, but, he couldn't see it being ready for the market in the next ten years."

That guy is a prick and a true disbeliever.

I think it has been widely misunderstood what exactly this breakthrough is. It is not yet another display with a fast-rotating spiral in the center, or a box filled with smoke and crossing beams form a 3D picture.

No. What this is, is basically a "normal" hologram, the kind you have as small stickers on CCs or (ugh) EULAs, or the kind you hang on your wall if you're so inclined, just erasable. It's basically the CD-RW of holograms. With that technology, if they can 'erase' and 'write' images fast enough (fast enough for let's say 25fps), we finally can have a holographic display.

Re:Misunderstandings and Disbeliefs (2, Insightful)

Trogre (513942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25278075)

You mean those crappy monochrome pictures you see in art galleries that you need to be looking at 100% square on to get anything other than horrible distortions?

Look, I think holograms are cool and all, just like I did back in the '80s when they were the next big thing. And they don't seem to have improved much since.

Re:Misunderstandings and Disbeliefs (1)

hurfy (735314) | more than 5 years ago | (#25278361)

I'll side with skeptical for now too.

Currently it is 4" square, monochrome, several minutes to draw and erase is a separate step.

To even get 3 colors, he is looking for a material that will produce the other 2 colors. I wonder if the resolution drops by a factor 3 then...anyone remember CGA graphics

Can you make a polymer with 256 different reactive materials to produce anything resembling a picture? Much less 16.7 million different types of material in a uniform polymer coating....

Even if it works on a bigger display, which wasn't a given, what is it for? X-rays and static drawings? Wouldn't a CAD-type program simulating 3D that you could manipulate still be better in most cases?

I can't wait.... (3, Funny)

RudeIota (1131331) | more than 5 years ago | (#25277863)

It's going to be awesome for my kids, watching 3D movies in our fusion-powered, flying family sedan running a light-weight, modular version of Windows.

And once I get home, I'll fire up my commercially viable Linux desktop and look at watch Netflix streaming Netflix movies, eating some Taco Bell (It will be the only "restaurant" left after the earthquake)

Interesting, but what about filming? (4, Insightful)

seeker_1us (1203072) | more than 5 years ago | (#25278029)

The display is only half the problem for a holographic "TV." You also have to have a holographic "camera", and those are not easy, especially since they require LASER light. I can't see it being safe for humans to "film" them with three lasers simultaneously (you need Red, Green, and Blue) that are intense enough to create the interferograms with enough contrast and to override background light.

Re:Interesting, but what about filming? (1)

dexmachina (1341273) | more than 5 years ago | (#25278669)

It's also possible to create "holographic stereograms" using a series of cameras, or a single fast moving camera. In practice, a well made holographic stereogram is indistinguisible from a genuine hologram (except that there's no vertical parallax). I don't know if this is the technique they're planning, but it may be possible to do it this way.

Re:Interesting, but what about filming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25280849)

By the time this thing is actually updating at a frames per second speed, it's unlikely that we'll still be using physical actors for anything but mo-cap and body reference, and our movies will be entirely done in CG.

It's depressing, really, to think that we won't be leaving Tom Cruise blind as a bat and burnt to crisp from filming with megawatt lasers.

It must be snowing in hell... (1)

dexmachina (1341273) | more than 5 years ago | (#25278647)

...because this is the first "holography" article in mainstraim media I've ever seen that appears to actually have to do with holography (as opposed to 90% of cases which are Pepper's ghost [wikipedia.org] and the remaining 9.99% of cases which are just crackpots). Bottom line: holograms aren't projections. They're no magic Star Wars Princess Leia hologram, accomplishing that would require a photon to fly off in one direction and then change direction by itself at some point. And they don't like doing that so much. So I don't think the "coffee table" model they're proposing is quite what most readers are going to be picturing.

offtopic (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 5 years ago | (#25279209)

The root of his (Peyghambarian) last name is "Prophet" in honor of the Prophet Muhammad, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam.

Stupid (1)

Alarindris (1253418) | more than 5 years ago | (#25279799)

The people don't look small when they're in your 2D TV, but with a holo-TV, they will look like tiny dolls in a dollhouse.

Useful for some things, but not TV.

Holograms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25281389)

Holograms look great on stickers and slurpee cups but I've never seen any static effect that really impressed me so who really cares if the same lame effect can be animated?

Why can't we just have a big rotating mirror sitting on the table with some sort of laser/dlp type projection system like the good ole tie-figher demos? Seems cheap and dooable to me.

The real problem is going to be convincing little jonny that if he tries to touch yoda his hand is going to be transformed into a bloody stump... Safety dome spoils the effect and we can't have that.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...