×

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!

Mind-Blowing Interfaces On Display At SIGGRAPH 2009

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the closing-in-on-that-holodeck dept.

Displays 173

An anonymous reader writes "Tech Review has a roundup of some cool, experimental new interfaces being shown at SIGGRAPH 2009, underway in New Orleans this week. They include an amazing 'touchable holograph' display, developed by a team in Japan, which uses an ultrasound device to simulate the sense of touch as the user grasps objects shown in 3D. The other ideas on display are Augmented Reality for Ordinary Toys, Hyper-Realistic Virtual Reality, 3D Teleconferencing and Scratchable Input Devices. If this is the future of computers, sign me up." The conference has also seen the release of OpenGL 3.2 by the Khronos Group.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

173 comments

I'm a PC.... (0, Offtopic)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#28958681)

From TFA: "A cluster of PCs is needed to perform the necessary image capture and 3D modeling." HA! Suck on that Mac!

Re:I'm a PC.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28958729)

Rob Malda has a 2 inch fully erect penis.

Re:I'm a PC.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28958835)

speaking of mind blowing, malda just blew me. Shit was so cash. Literally. He ate out my asshole and offered my $5 if I would shit in his mouth. Given the size of the brown rope I dropped, he sure got his money's worth.

Re:I'm a PC.... (0, Offtopic)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959245)

> speaking of mind blowing, malda just blew me. Shit was so cash. Literally. He ate out my asshole and offered my $5 if I would shit in his mouth. Given the size of the brown rope I dropped, he sure got his money's worth.

4chan just called, they want their zeitgeist back.

Re:I'm a PC.... (3, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#28958751)

Who cares?

By the way, Macs are Personal Computers too.

Re:I'm a PC.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28959011)

Who cares?

By the way, Macs are Personal Computers too.

So should we rename Windows machines IPCs, Impersonal Computers?

Re:I'm a PC.... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959105)

In your terminology, what kind of computer found in a home is not a personal computer?

Re:I'm a PC.... (1)

corychristison (951993) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959141)

Precisely.

I don't understand this 'PC vs Mac' bullshit. It's all the same hardware (now, anyway).

What about those of us who use Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD/Plan9 as our day-to-day OS. Are they not running on "PC's"?

Re:I'm a PC.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28959269)

I don't understand this 'PC vs Mac' bullshit. It's all the same hardware (now, anyway).

Talk to Apple Computers about it. They started that whole thing.

Re:I'm a PC.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28959311)

I don't understand this 'PC vs Mac' bullshit

That is more a commentary on your own stupidity than the PC vs. Mac ad campaign. More specifically on your ability to detect when someone is attempting to manipulate your perception of something.

Re:I'm a PC.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28959501)

Its because they locked down the branding early. The reverse happens a lot, where adhesive strips are known as "Band-aids" regardless of brand, or facial tissues being called "Kleenex".

PC stopped meaning "Personal Computer" a long time ago, just as NT no longer represents "New Technology". Now its just another branding device. If Apple was threatened by it, I am sure they could do "Hi, I'm a PC" and "And I'm a Mac, and also a PC" while having the 2 poster children banter about being Personal Computers. It instead goes ignored, as it should, since it does not threaten anyone's market share.

Re:I'm a PC.... (1)

stokessd (89903) | more than 4 years ago | (#28960985)

In your terminology, what kind of computer found in a home is not a personal computer?

The server next to my furnace is a surly bastard. I say hello to it when I'm refilling the water softener and it doesn't say anything, it just hums at me. To add insult to injury, it blinks some lights too. The thing never says a word, that's awfully impersonal if you ask me.

Sheldon

Re:I'm a PC.... (1, Flamebait)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#28958857)

From TFA: "A cluster of PCs is needed to perform the necessary image capture and 3D modeling." HA! Suck on that Mac!

Also from TFA: "You're a retard." Oh wait, the article doesn't say that, that was me.

ultrasound... (5, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#28958685)

So, you can actually feel something when you touch the hologram?

3-D PORN.

Re:ultrasound... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28958849)

So that's why it was made in Japan...

3-D STD . . . (2, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#28958903)

So, you can actually feel something when you touch the hologram?

3-D PORN.

. . . just hope that you can't catch something when you touch . . .

Re:ultrasound... (4, Funny)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 4 years ago | (#28958925)

So, you can actually feel something when you touch the hologram?
3-D PORN.

Ahem, they said mind blowing ...

Re:ultrasound... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28958939)

How long until there are giant 3-D tentacle monsters that rape Japanese teenagers?

Re:ultrasound... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959879)

All the documentaries I've seen suggest it already happens and the problem is held at bay only by a small number of teenage ninjas and their fragile schoolgirl outfits.

Re:ultrasound... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28959249)

Interesting, now I just had an idea for a novel about someone getting murdered by a hologram. That would be the perfect crime.

Re:ultrasound... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28959645)

Please state the nature of the medical emergency.

Ultrasound - the medical perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28961023)

Using ultrasound is not a very good idea because at the power levels required to make you feel it, it generates a lot of heat, which could cause permanent tissue damage. Wonder why the doctors use that gel when they do a sonogram? It's not to make the surface smooth for gliding, but to cool the skin because ultrasound generates a lot of heat even at such low power levels that you can't feel. If you have osteoporosis and use an ultrasound device for massage, you could end up with heat induced bone fractures.

Re:Ultrasound - the medical perspective (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#28961279)

Isn't feeling/not feeling the ultrasound more relative to the frequency? A sonogram uses high-frequency ultrasound to get better resolution... if you're just trying to give tactile feedback, you'd use a much lower frequency. Am I right?

Also, a sonogram has to penetrate deep into the tissue... thus the high intensity, which means more heat. If you're just trying to hit the surface, you wouldn't need such a high intensity, so I wouldn't expect it to generate as much heat.

Of course, I'm not a doctor, so I could be wrong.

Touchable Hologram? (4, Funny)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 4 years ago | (#28958735)

Rimmer will be delighted!

Re:Touchable Hologram? (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 4 years ago | (#28958783)

With the discovery of the hard light drive, Rimmer was in pretty good shape. Still, not much could have been sweeter than the holoship.

When this goes commercial, my kids are getting bunk beds. Having a holodeck in my house completely outranks the importance of them having their own rooms.

Augmented reality (4, Interesting)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 4 years ago | (#28958757)

Ever since I first heard of it I've thought augmented reality is going to be big some day. It's not much more than a toy right now (watching the video, it was clear that there's still a long way to go before it reaches it's full promise), but someday it'll be there. At my last job we used a lot of virtual reality modeling to do experimental training programs (learn to weld without real fire kind of stuff). Augmented reality will be so much better for this kind of thing. Think about it. A welder uses a real (modified) torch on a real piece of metal, but his goggles show the metal heating up and reforming. Or combine it with the tactile stuff from the other example and surgeon uses a "real" scalpel in a real operating room, but sees and feels a virtual patient. You could learn and practice very complicated procedures this way.

We're no where near being able to build holodecks, but between this tactile display tech and augmented reality we may not have to. Use the real world as your backdrop, put in real things where ever appropriate, and only simulate the stuff that you actually need to interact with.

Re:Augmented reality (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28958913)

It will be reality if you don't have to wear some stupid ass glasses to use it. Every one I've seen that has a camera on a pair of specs and it looks, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Bluetooth adapters stuck in someones ear walking around look dumb now, imgagine have a seen stuck to your eye.

Re:Augmented reality (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959061)

Apple made it popular to have white wires hanging out of your ears. It just takes marketing

Re:Augmented reality (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959191)

Well in my welding example you're just using a normal (though modified) safety device for the job. With the surgeon... Well, maybe a modified face shield? I dunno... the idea is training for specific jobs anyway, it's not like you'd be walking around your day-to-day life wearing the things. You'd want to make it as natural as possible for the trainees, and where possible use eye gear normal to the job; but some people will probably just have to use goofy glasses.

Re:Augmented reality (1)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#28961361)

it's not like you'd be walking around your day-to-day life wearing the things

Why couldn't you walk around with something like this? I can't see why we wouldn't be able to shrink the tech down to be able to display on the inside of your glasses to provide a sort of HUD for life -- say if they were linked up to Google Earth you could overlay street names on what you are seeing. Or you could use facial recognition software linked up with your company's database and never worry about forgetting a co-worker's name. If you walk by an historical monument, a little blurb from the Wikipedia page could pop over it. It would be great for driving as well -- you could project a small view from a camera on the back of the car so you can look forward and not mess around with mirrors, or keep your eyes on the road by putting your speedometer in an HUD sort of view. I see the most revolutionary use for this tech being for day to day use, although the tech obviously has a way to go before it gets there.

Re:Augmented reality (1)

GauteL (29207) | more than 4 years ago | (#28958931)

While you provide some excellent examples of practical uses for augmented reality, you and I both know that it will mostly be used for entertainment (escaping zombies in your apartment block) or pr0n (that porn star now actually looks like she is in your bed).

Re:Augmented reality (3, Insightful)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959491)

The easiest and simplest use for augmented reality would be to label the real world ...

Wear the special glasses (small and compact, not the prototype bulky ones) and everything you look at gets a label explaining what it is, stare at it and it gives you more detail, museums, art galleries and similar can finally remove labels from exhibits and people can get the more info than those audio commentaries while they look round at random and at their own speed ....

Re:Augmented reality (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959611)

The easiest and simplest use for augmented reality would be to label the real world ...

Walking down the street -

"Single"
"Married"
"Single with Facebook Profile"
"Malda's GF - don't touch"

Re:Augmented reality (4, Funny)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#28960037)

The easiest and simplest use for augmented reality would be to label the real world ...

Walking down the street -

"Single"

"Married"

"Single with Facebook Profile"

"Malda's GF - don't touch"

And don't forget...

"Jailbait"
"Psycho"
"Trap"

Re:Augmented reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28960219)

Sounds like the glasses in William Gibson's Virtual Light from 1994. Of course they were producing images by directly stimulating the optic nerves (or something) without the use of photons.

Re:Augmented reality (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 4 years ago | (#28960289)

I've thought of that, but it's a lot more complicated. To make that work you'd have to have some sort of huge database of what things (for a fairly nebulous definition of "things") are, and hardware and software to interface between the glasses and the database. In something like a museum this could work to an extent, you're issued glasses and a portable interface device (or with small enough circuitry, just really smart glasses)when you go in, and the heavy lifting is done by back room servers that store the database and interpret the camera signals. The whole thing could be on a Museum WLAN. It would still be a lot of programming, but it could be done I think. Outside of that kind of limited system though you'd have a much harder time. Sure it'd be great if you could turn your sunglasses into a permanent HUD that gives you information as you want or need it, but the backed programming would be colossal and everyone would have to carry something probably on par with a desktop computer in power to handle the interfacing. I don't think current generation phones and PDAs could handle it.

Re:Augmented reality (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 4 years ago | (#28960381)

You mean like google maps has "things" labeled? Like hotels, restaurants, shops, etc. Just one more level of resolution of "things", and it's near what you're talking about.

Re:Augmented reality (1)

daenris (892027) | more than 4 years ago | (#28960439)

Sure it'd be great if you could turn your sunglasses into a permanent HUD that gives you information as you want or need it, but the backed programming would be colossal and everyone would have to carry something probably on par with a desktop computer in power to handle the interfacing. I don't think current generation phones and PDAs could handle it.

That's fine since the current generation glasses are bulky and not good for mainstream use. By the time the display equipment gets to a point where it's easy to use, comfortable, and doesn't overly strain the eyes, handheld hardware will probably be strong enough for the heavy lifting.

Re:Augmented reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28960963)

also directions to locations, as well as instructables on how to perform tasks (such as holding a soldering iron the right way, where to clamp a bookshelf, etc)

Re:Augmented reality (1)

svtdragon (917476) | more than 4 years ago | (#28961393)

...stare at it and it gives you more detail...

The possibilities for expanded witty t-shirt text are frightening.

And even when there's no text, we can stare at ladies' chests and say "Oh, excuse me. I was just reading [about] your shirt!"

Re:Augmented reality (1)

dissy (172727) | more than 4 years ago | (#28961437)

The easiest and simplest use for augmented reality would be to label the real world ...

This is where we are at right now. You are correct in that there is a ways to go, but the foundation (of software) is catching up, and the hardware isn't far behind (mainly a cost issue now)

http://www.ismashphone.com/2009/07/innovative-examples-of-augmented-reality-on-the-iphone.html [ismashphone.com]

Apologies for the iPhone specific link, but there are multiple examples of apps that use the display/camera to do exactly that. Label the real world, and share your labels with your friends.

Really exciting stuff!

Re:Augmented reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28960243)

The examples you outlined don't require augmented reality since the primary thing you'd be interacting with would be virtual.

All you need is a VR helmet and a glorified joystick to simulate the scalpel/torch.
In fact, the surgery example already exists [wikipedia.org].

Think more meatspace interaction like:
- Getting directions to not only the store, but the exact shelf which has the product you want via a highlighted route
- Being able to take part in reenactments of historic battles in the actual location where they took place.
- Even simple HUD style stuff like when driving in the dark/fog and having IR information overlayed in the scene.
- Even more simple stuff like seen what a room would look like with different colors of paint.

Re:Augmented reality (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 4 years ago | (#28960277)

The holodeck will be mankind's last invention. Once we have them, everyone's goal in life will be to earn enough to own a holodeck and live the rest of their lives in it while having their every whim and fantasy catered to instantly.

To have a holodeck you would need computers as intelligent as people to play the characters in it. Robots must also be capable of similar intelligence, and so the real world will be abandoned to them as long as they keep generating power to run the holodecks. Since all matter, including food, is replicated all you need is energy and a bit of material to re-shape.

The future won't be like Star Trek. Well, for some of us it might be /exactly/ like Star Trek, but you know what I mean.

mind-blowing (3, Funny)

erbbysam (964606) | more than 4 years ago | (#28958777)

I don't really want a display that will cause an explosion in my mind, I'm kinda attached to it...

Re:mind-blowing (1)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#28958873)

I think they were referring to mind-blowing more in the sense of... well... you know.

Re:mind-blowing (1)

KahabutDieDrake (1515139) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959383)

This being /. it's pretty likely he doesn't know. Unfortunately, it's entirely beyond my writing ability to describe getting blown.

Re:mind-blowing (1)

erbbysam (964606) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959937)

This being /. it's pretty likely he doesn't know. Unfortunately, it's entirely beyond my writing ability to describe getting blown.

Didn't you just describe it?
...being chastised for not having experienced something related to intercourse on /. is...well...interesting...

Scratching? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28958877)

And scratching feverishly at one's trousers in the middle of the important meeting is better than manually switching the phone off because.... ?

Holograms: 2D vs 3D (1)

ThePyro (645161) | more than 4 years ago | (#28958943)

I couldn't really tell from the video, and the article didn't specify. Are the touchable holograms 3D, or are they just 2D images floating in mid-air? I suspect the latter. Still impressive, though.

Re:Holograms: 2D vs 3D (2, Informative)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959295)

I couldn't really tell from the video, and the article didn't specify. Are the touchable holograms 3D, or are they just 2D images floating in mid-air? I suspect the latter. Still impressive, though.

It's a 3D rendered object, being projected onto a concave mirror. This gives the illusion of a 3D object floating in space because as you move your head, the perspective of the image changes as well.

They then use a couple WiiMotes to track your hand and use that data to interact with the image. So you can actually manipulate the image with your hand.

They also use some kind of ultrasound thing to give the impression of tactile feedback on your hand. So when you touch the image, you feel something on your hand.

Re:Holograms: 2D vs 3D (1)

kmahan (80459) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959503)

Are there any open source projects doing something similar? Preferably with readily available/buildable hardware to keep the cost down?

Holodeck (5, Funny)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 4 years ago | (#28958965)

As we all should know from STNG, the 3d touchable hologram is probably the most dangerous entertainment system ever created. The doors never let you out, the holographic characters become sentient, the safety protocals NEVER work and it opens a rift up to places where holographic characters evolved naturally, so they promptly invade. STOP NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!

Re:Holodeck (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28959155)

You say that now, but you'll be changing your tune when you need to gun down a borg with a thompson submachine gun.

The scratch interface could be a problem (2, Insightful)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 4 years ago | (#28958973)

I tap my desk all the time, just as a habit. Wouldn't want my cell phone to interpret that the wrong way -- or, if not my cell phone, perhaps somebody else's. And I wonder about somebody entering the room with a heavy step, or scuffing their feet... could be weird.

I remember ïseeing Apple's voice recognition demo'd years ago (on a Mac IIfx! yikes, that's old) and the presenter had to address the computer each time. "Computer, close the window. Computer, open Microsoft Word." Etc. Somebody in the audience asked him how that would work in a shared, open, noisy office environment, and he didn't know. He suspected that you couldn't use it on more than one computer, or you might end up directing somebody else's machine to do stuff. "Computer, shut down." Oops. Might the same be true of a scratch interface?

Re:The scratch interface could be a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28959121)

The obvious solution to the voice problem would be to give each computer a different name, and call it by that.
"HAL, open the doors!"

Re:The scratch interface could be a problem (1)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 4 years ago | (#28960357)

Sure, but what about scratching? Should each computer be assigned a Morse code number? "Wait, was mine tap-scratch-tap-tap, or tap-tap-scratch-scratch?"

Re:The scratch interface could be a problem (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959505)

Come in to work Friday morning and yell, "Computer. Format C drive."

Whoohoo!! Three day weekend while IT reinstalls five dozen desktop systems.

Re:The scratch interface could be a problem (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959717)

Or you get fired and they spend 20 or 30 minutes pushing out new images and another 10 to restore backups of documents...

Re:The scratch interface could be a problem (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28960705)

Or you get fired and they spend 20 or 30 minutes pushing out new images and another 10 to restore backups of documents...

You must be a fucking blast at parties.

Re:The scratch interface could be a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28959727)

ROFLMAO!!

Re:The scratch interface could be a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28960713)

Hey, at least Linux desktops are safe. Try pronouncing "mkfs -t ext2 /dev/sdb1"

Re:The scratch interface could be a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28959695)

Later Macs had to be addressed by their unique name (IIgs if I remember correctly). I don't know about current Mac voice recognition schemes or they still have that feature. I have 2 Macs, and I'm not interested if they do have this feature.

Re:The scratch interface could be a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28961347)

At least on later versions of the Mac Voice Recognition, you could change the word it listened for. Instead of computer it could be Apple Sauce, and it would ignore everything else.

By the way, the most useful voice command was/is "Tell me a joke"

I see where this is going (3, Funny)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959029)

First, they'll set this up on PCs at home. Then it'll be laptops. Then, netbooks.

The next thing you know, you're gonna have to dodge a frigging mindfield of idiots walking around having orgasms (cmon, you KNOW this thing is gonna be used for porn) because wearable computers takes off.

Re:I see where this is going (3, Funny)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959109)

'The next thing you know, you're gonna have to dodge a frigging mindfield of idiots walking around having orgasms (cmon, you KNOW this thing is gonna be used for porn) because wearable computers takes off.'

You say that like it's a bad thing!

Re:I see where this is going (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959413)

Gives "cleanup on aisle four" a whole new (and disturbing) meaning.

Re:I see where this is going (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28960741)

your smart phones become sassy as well?! grrRRRRRrrrr! ...and (lmao) the "confirm your humanity by typing the word you see into the box" is telling me to type in "tongue"! :D

TV screens still have a long way to go (5, Informative)

peter303 (12292) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959039)

I made it SIGGRAPH last year, but not this year. Its GEEK heaven. SIGGRAPH makes me aware how inadequate current video technology is. Do not be deceived by current large screen HD TVs - technology can do so much better.

In a nutshell, perfect video technology would be "indistinguishable from looking outside of a window on a sunny day". Thats what human visual systems are designed for. I've seen some experimental systems at SIGGRAPH that start to approach this quality. I hope it doesnt take 40 years to commercialize this like HDTV. I would love to see a theater movie where it felt like I was looking through a window at another world.

Resolution is probably the best aspect of current video. Beyond about 2,000 scan lines and 4K horizontal pixels, you reallly cant see more, unless it is a very large screen.

Contrast is perhaps in worst shape. The most impressive videos are those that have contrast ranges over a million, preferably over a billion. Super dark shadows and bright light source appear real then. The best monitors at Best Buy have contrast ranges in hundred thousands, but many are under a thousand. Different contrasts are very noticeable viewing screens side-by side. Sony has an experimental Organic-LED screen with a million contrast that starts to look realistic.

Current video only fills about half of the human perceptual color space. I've seen six-primary-color systems at SIGGRAPH that approach 80%-90% of the color space. They are very impressive when looking at nature and artwork. Compare a work of art and its best conventional video display and the color inadequacies will be immediately apparent.

Least is important is 3D in my opinion. It does make things look more real when you look through a window.

A big issue with enhanced video is that its not just the display device, but the whole video system. You need a camera, a signal representation, coomunication bandwidth, and recording devices that support all the enhanced features. You really cant shoe-horn it in existing systems.

Re:TV screens still have a long way to go (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959553)

Contrast is perhaps in worst shape. The most impressive videos are those that have contrast ranges over a million, preferably over a billion. Super dark shadows and bright light source appear real then. The best monitors at Best Buy have contrast ranges in hundred thousands, but many are under a thousand. Different contrasts are very noticeable viewing screens side-by side. Sony has an experimental Organic-LED screen with a million contrast that starts to look realistic.

This LED-backlit LCD [amazon.com] supposed has a five-million-to-one contrast ratio.

They have these at Best Buy, and the 40-inch one is only $1600, and I think I may be getting one. I'm not about to assume that manufacturer-reported contrast ratio is accurate, but visually comparing them to the normal florescent-backlit LCDs next to them, the difference is incredibly apparent and I think worth the extra price.

Re:TV screens still have a long way to go (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959783)

This LED-backlit LCD supposed has a five-million-to-one contrast ratio.

But then again, how many camera systems have 24-bit dynamic range and is this preserved in current digital compression techniques? Probably not. The whole system has to handle this.

Back in the 1990s when studios were switching over to digital editing, the advanced companies were a real stickler for 24-bit per color channel standard. The hardware graphics companies claimed this was overkill. It is not overkill where you have adquate monitors and cameras.

Re:TV screens still have a long way to go (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#28960719)

But then again, how many camera systems have 24-bit dynamic range and is this preserved in current digital compression techniques? Probably not. The whole system has to handle this.

I dunno, but I would imagine they still have enough range to look good on a CRT, which has a really high contrast ratio. Certainly on those occasions I've watched TV on a CRT in recent years I didn't notice any contrast issues like I do with LCDs.

Re:TV screens still have a long way to go (1)

KWolfe81 (1593877) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959751)

You really cant shoe-horn it in existing systems.

Exactly why it'll take 40 more years to get to where you want....

Re:TV screens still have a long way to go (1)

jdmetz (802257) | more than 4 years ago | (#28960509)

Could you explain why more than three primary colors are necessary to fill the whole human perceptual color space? Since our eyes only have receptors for three different wavelengths, it seems that we ought to be able to replicate any color with appropriate intensities at each of those three wavelengths. Is the problem with current displays that they don't have exactly the right wavelengths, or is it something else?

Re:TV screens still have a long way to go (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#28960671)

Since our eyes only have receptors for three different wavelengths, it seems that we ought to be able to replicate any color with appropriate intensities at each of those three wavelengths.

I'm not an expert on this, but I think the basic reason is that it isn't completely true [wikipedia.org] that our eyes only respond to three wavelengths. Each type of cone responds to a range of frequencies. But the pixels on a screen represent exactly one frequency.

Re:TV screens still have a long way to go (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#28960527)

"e "indistinguishable from looking outside of a window on a sunny day". "
I want it to be better.

Re:TV screens still have a long way to go (1)

Archfeld (6757) | more than 4 years ago | (#28961423)

Could we even perceive an improvement ? Have to wonder what the upper limit is, and what the bottleneck will be ? the receptor (eye) or processor (brain) or maybe the conductor (nerve system), and how long will it take to upgrade/circumvent...

Re:TV screens still have a long way to go (1)

Gryle (933382) | more than 4 years ago | (#28960659)

In a nutshell, perfect video technology would be "indistinguishable from looking outside of a window on a sunny day"

Such a feat of technology would be amazing and special effects implications for movie and games is immense. [tinfoilhat]Still, one wonders what that kind of technology could do in the wrong hands: "Why yes citizen, this is the real world. We promise." [/tinfoilhat]

mind-blowing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28959075)

Somehow I don't think it's minds that this display will be blowing when it finally reaches the consumer.

Augmented reality was the only decent dispaly. (5, Insightful)

BlueKitties (1541613) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959267)

Not to knock the hologram, but that looked too limited to be very promising. The augmented reality has a lot more promise, considering its only been a few years since we got Haar Cascades for object recognition, and we've already got real-time facial recognition. Screw laser tag, I'm waiting to fight alien baddies.

Imagine real life way-points for GPS navigation, or mid-air big screen TVs, or general awesome HUD display. A single pair of badass augmented reality glasses could replace all of your monitors (TV, computer, etc) it could give perfect directions (follow the magic glowing green line) virtual computer terminals (say, via an Airport network computer) floating text bubbles for deaf people, insta binoculars, glorified porn, etc.

Re:Augmented reality was the only decent dispaly. (1)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 4 years ago | (#28960989)

I've often thought it would be cool to just play RTS games using augmented reality. How cool would it be to have a friend over and play a game of age of empires across the living room?

Love the scratching idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28959381)

Can't wait till I can work by just scratching my a$$!

Displays (1)

sabernet (751826) | more than 4 years ago | (#28959591)

As awesome as these are, I can see where the bottleneck is: display technology.

These are all cool, but what we really need is the same thing we've needed for a while: a way to produce a good image and shovel that into our visual centers. That augmented reality game will only really be fun if we can wear a pair of lite glasses or point some device at our retina that will produce a display that will both exceed 640x480 and not fry our rods and cones.

The guy with the $5000+ HMD(likely with a lifespan measured in months, too) glued to the Martian construction helmet shows how far we still have to go in terms of personal and wearable display tech.

Finally a Man's interface (3, Funny)

Nkwe (604125) | more than 4 years ago | (#28960141)

I can scratch my butt or something else to make stuff happen? Awesome!

why scratch? (1)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 4 years ago | (#28960153)

What advantage does it have over voice recognition? It seems to be the same or similar underlying processing.

Mind-blowing? (1, Troll)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#28960441)

The first example, I seen a long time ago. A very bad hologram effect that really has little practical use. So, they added motion detection to it. Coupling TWO existing techs is not that mind-blowing. I would have been impressed if the hologram was either bigger, or more involved or the motion tracking had displayed something more. The ultra-sound for touch again has been done, it has also been tried with air, but really, if this is the future, then the future is still decades away.

The augmented reality TOY is a joke. Augmented reality MIGHT be worth something but this game is a pathetic example of it. Come on, we HAVE had laser games for YEARS. Also toys that shoot REAL (foam) rockets. Who is going to bother with a game where a simple cowboy's and indian's game takes this long and costs a fortune? Someone should give these guys a pc or console. Shooters have been done, both in the physical and virtual world and with a LOT more excitement.

The virtual reality... well, what is new this time? We seen this display for ages and for reason the 3d world always seem rather subpar to what a common console could render last year. So, I am in it. Useful for design but the future? Only for designers.

The 3d teleconfericing is even worse. Oh goodie, lets do away with ordinary monitors and beamers for quality video and instead buy a no-doubt expensive device that has a spinning plate in it and a huge black cowling, all that so we can see ONE face and nothing else.

And the scratching... that is just pathetic. I thought at first that it make a wall into a touch surface. Capable of detecting the POSITION. But no, this can just detect some sound. This is no more then the most basic voice control software provided over a decade or two ago. Record a sound and if that sound is repeated again with in certain parameters, a command is triggered. WHOO! That is the future! Oh wait, no it isn't. Can you imagine how many times you will either scratch wrong or do it accidently. Every time you bump your coffee-cup, your phone shuts-off.

All the above techs are somewhat intresting, but the "mindblowing" bit in the headline blew it for me. This stuff ain't mind-blowing. Just barely worthy of idle.

Re:Mind-blowing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28960857)

Who would bother with the augmented reality toys?

Miniatures gaming [games-workshop.com]

Who will bring these to us? APPLE WILL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28961067)

Go apple!

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...