×

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!

Sony Demo'ing 360 Degree 3-D Tabletop Display

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the must-stand-in-this-position dept.

Displays 102

JoshuaInNippon writes "Sony announced via a Japanese press release that they will be showing off a prototype of a tabletop 360 degree 3-D display that can be seen in any direction without special glasses at the Digital Content Expo 2009 in Tokyo, from October 22-25. The device is quite small, at just over 10 inches tall and 5 inches in diameter. The display, using LEDs, currently supports an image that is 96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall, with 24-bit full color. Sony also says it could have a number of applications, such as a digital sign, a digital frame, a medical display, or a virtual pet. Looking at the product image, who else wants to bet on the latter?)"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

102 comments

Hmm... (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29796975)

How about an application that, using the webcam, grabs an image of the user's face and then wraps it onto a 3d model of a little head on this display.

Your own tiny, somewhat distorted face would stare at you for a while, and then begin a high, thin, tormented wailing, smashing itself against the confines of the display tube. It's like a screensaver; but with more sanity damage.

Re:Hmm... (2, Informative)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 4 years ago | (#29797069)

(from the presspiece)
"If you had such a 3603d display, what would you use it for?"
Talk about a loaded question.

Pr0n of course (but with more sanity damage perhaps).

Re:Hmm... (2, Funny)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 4 years ago | (#29798209)

Pr0n of course

96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall pr0n, think of the possibilities !

Re:Hmm... (4, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#29797205)

Your own tiny, somewhat distorted face would stare at you for a while, and then begin a high, thin, tormented wailing, smashing itself against the confines of the display tube.

Just like the old days of reading /. with a reflective CRT screen.

Re:Hmm... (1)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#29798327)

Yeah, 85hz or higher refresh rates on a crisp clear display with a sizeable amount more space than those laggy/blurry LCDs was terrible. I hate mine so much, I want something that can only run one resolution (badly) and smears like an oil painting whenever I scroll.

Re:Hmm... (1)

Zan Lynx (87672) | more than 4 years ago | (#29798417)

You must have got one of those $75 "special" LCDs.

You generally get what you pay for.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29799609)

You generally get what you pay for.

Sure, and what I paid for was a top of the line CRT monitor. A bit more than a decade on, though, I think LCDs are really catching up.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29801983)

Yep. Besides, if he really meant what he said, he would have already switched back, because some dumpster diving will reveal good, working, top of the line CRTs for the price of a short walk and a broken back. Seriously, companies are dumping dose things by the dozen. But I'm still glad that I bought an LCD instead after my CRT woomphed itself. I had a good CRT, especially for the time, but after switching I immediately noticed how much happier my eyes felt. And no convergence problems, no controls to twiddle (it has an "auto" button that does it for you, which is mostly isn't even necessary), clearer, sharper picture, and so on and so forth und so weiter. I guess I'm pretty happy with it, but I'm longing for the day when a version of To Heart comes out that supports the gadget in the article.

Re:Hmm... (2, Funny)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29797389)

Just what I need. My own personal Max Headroom telling me I have email

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29799137)

Dude... wait.. what, you are Max Headroom??

Re:Hmm... (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802435)

Actually, my name is Edison Carter. Max is something of a clone of mine, sort of... actually...

You know what? It's a long story. Never mind. I have to go watch some blipverts.

Re:Hmm... (1)

Joelfabulous (1045392) | more than 4 years ago | (#29803635)

don't let Sony marketing hear you! or they might come up with more crazy ads... anyone remember the ps3 baby one? man, that was surreal and horrifying all at once :)

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29807165)

I smell a robocop reference. Plus, I would rather throw bonzi buddy in it, so it'll be cool for about 5 minutes and then crash and burn from malware.

96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall (5, Insightful)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#29796985)

96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall

If this thing is a 3D display, shouldn't there be another pixel dimension quoted here?

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall (4, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29797063)

96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall

If this thing is a 3D display, shouldn't there be another pixel dimension quoted here?

I'd settle for an explanation of how the thing works.

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall (2, Interesting)

gnick (1211984) | more than 4 years ago | (#29797187)

Hear hear. I'm assuming that the third dimension is 2, just like every 3-d display I've seen (they ALWAYS tailor these thing for people with only 2 eyes...), but one way or another they need to show different images to each eye. We've done the colored cellophane thing. We've done the shudder thing. We've done the separate display thing. We've done the vertical/horizontal polarization thing. We've done (and are doing for modern movies) the horizontal polarization thing with reversed polarity wave plates in front. The only system I've seen that didn't require glasses required you to stay in one place and stay very still while they use some special method to present different images to each eye.

360 sounds neat, but I'm having trouble even speculating. WTF are they doing?

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall (5, Informative)

RocketRocketship (1416283) | more than 4 years ago | (#29797317)

I'd guess it uses a spinning mirror. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FiR2rGv7i4 [youtube.com]

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29806843)

The only system I've seen that didn't require glasses required you to stay in one place and stay very still while they use some special method to present different images to each eye.

There are systems like holovizio [youtube.com].

No glasses, no limit to number of viewers and actual 'window-like' 3D, not just stereo images.

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall (2, Interesting)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 4 years ago | (#29797257)

Judging by the shape of the device, I'd say it's done by projecting onto a rapidly rotating surface (mirror?), relying on persistence of vision to create the image. At least I've seen a demo of such a technique before.

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall (1)

Thoguth (203384) | more than 4 years ago | (#29811279)

I had the same thought. It's like those waving-wand displays that use a 1-dimensional array of LED's to make a 2-dimensional image, only apparently adapted dimensions++

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall (2, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29797545)

Indeed; I RTFA and was sorely disappointed, it looked like a Sony press release (and a small one at thet) to me. There was nothing in TFA that warranted reading it, aside from the picture of the goofy looking hardware.

Is it stereoscopic or holographic? And whichever, how does the thing work?

Not a new idea (2, Insightful)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 4 years ago | (#29798337)

Its clearly the rotation screen idea. Those clocks and other gimic 2D displays where a line of LEDs are moved quickly to create a virtual flat surface and a synchronized micro controller figures out what to flash on the LEDs when they "scan" past a point in space. The concept is similar to the old tube TV with electron scans-- but in a way, it is more primitive in that a physical scanning process is involved.

The 3D version is the same concept but has a flat surface screen that rotates on the Z axis. Their photo is a cylinder tube which implies its a rotating screen like all the others of this kind. What is odd, is why they didn't leave the top open-- the earlier designs made the top clear-- and could use a hemisphere to cover it.. I suppose its easier on the bearings and RPM to be supported on both sides of the shaft...

It has serious physical limitations. rotational velocity means screen size must be small and it has to be STRONG (so LED not LCD.) Probably needs 2 screens on the 2D surface to get a good frame rate at a lower RPM. I'm guessing they went for higher RPM in a tube with screens on both sides using surface mount LEDs. (they could have wanted the top just to keep vibration and noise down so it could be made with lower tolerances.)

The reason I do not think it is a mirror like other people is the low resolution of the image-- if they are going to reflect a screen they may as well enlarge it and place a higher quality screen near the center of the shaft where the forces are minimized. Say they do some clever optics with a stationary screen-- the why not use an even better screen?

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall (1)

Steve Franklin (142698) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799403)

Yeah, I'm still trying to figure what it actually looks like, too. The description was obviously written by the same guy who used to write the Sony user's manuals that talked about the "equipments."

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall (1)

Madcat123 (700335) | more than 4 years ago | (#29807249)

It'll just show a 2d 96x128px image but in a way that that can be viewed from any direction (as opposed to current displays being viewable from maximum of 180 degress angle).

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall (4, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#29797117)

96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall

If this thing is a 3D display, shouldn't there be another pixel dimension quoted here?

It is probably one of the spinning mirror type displays. They project different 96 x 128 pixel images onto a spinning mirror depending on the angular position of the mirror. So the 3rd dimension that is probably missing is the minimum angular feature within the 360 degrees.

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall (1)

TheUnFounded (731123) | more than 4 years ago | (#29798207)

Looking at the picture, I think it's likely that it's built with a circular display around the z axis, so the width is probably a diameter measurement. 96 pixels in diameter and 128 pixels tall seems to make sense to me.

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall (2, Funny)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 4 years ago | (#29798391)

96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall

If this thing is a 3D display, shouldn't there be another pixel dimension quoted here?

Judging by the quoted figures, they were probably too embarrassed.

Journalist: "So what are the 3 dimensions that you can display in ?"
Sony : "It's 128 pixels by 96 pixels by mumblemumble but it's still very experimental. And look at the vibrant colours !"
Journalist : "Sorry I didn't get that last figure"
Sony : "Did you notice the refresh rate, oh yes it's 128x96xmumble, look, we have a great tree model, let me load it for you"
Journalist : "sorry, times what ?"
Sony (squeaky) "times three..."
(in an overly enthusiastic voice) "Look, the branches are moving, doesn't it look like..."
Journalist : "Wait, not only is it a bit small to start with but that's barely 3D, it's more like 2 1/2 D"
Sony : "Who are you, what are you doing here ? Security !"

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall (1)

cpicon92 (1157705) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800729)

One could assume that since the device is cylindrical that 96 pixels is the diameter and 128 pixels is the height.

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall (1)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801423)

Assuming it works by the old "spinning display surface" trick, no. There are only two dimensions at any given point in time.

Re:96 pixels wide by 128 pixels tall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29803569)

It's 3D, where the 3rd 'D' is 1 pixel.

Needs to be bigger (4, Funny)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 4 years ago | (#29797045)

Fun, but kind of useless at that size, unless you're R2D2 and have a vital message for an older Jedi warrior. I can envision floor and ceiling mounted projection units mounted flush that will do this sort of thing to display mannequins, advertisements, and battle station blueprints. I would think with a large enough angle from the floor and ceiling you wouldn't need any side projectors.

Bigger is not really the issue (3, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 4 years ago | (#29797171)

This, or something else truly 3D (as opposed to stereo tech), will no doubt be scalable. The problem we have, really, is there is no 3D media. No movies, TV shows, etc. Only computer generated imagery is readily available in 3D at this point.

Making stereo media is almost trivial. 3D is a whole nuther ball of wax. Highly desirable, but no less difficult for that.

Re:Bigger is not really the issue (3, Interesting)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#29797655)

This, or something else truly 3D (as opposed to stereo tech), will no doubt be scalable. The problem we have, really, is there is no 3D media. No movies, TV shows, etc. Only computer generated imagery is readily available in 3D at this point.

Making stereo media is almost trivial. 3D is a whole nuther ball of wax. Highly desirable, but no less difficult for that.

Ahhh I donno I've seen some 3d porn out on the torrent sites and with the way computers are going it won't be to long before someone writes a conversion program for 2d anyhow. You see the Characters from enough angles most of the time.

Really I'm just waiting for the "make your own" porn I MEAN movie software.

1. Select the characters & their mental attributes.
2. Select the outfits, scenes, etc.
3. Input story/screenplay.
4. Do some directing when something goes wrong.
5. Profit... (There is no ??? or spoon)

Re:Bigger is not really the issue (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#29797823)

Didn't Peter Jackson already use something like this for the battle scenes in the LOTR movies?

Re:Bigger is not really the issue (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#29798927)

Didn't Peter Jackson already use something like this for the battle scenes in the LOTR movies?

I'd say so... I mean most games already use something like it anyhow to control large groups of monsters... As it stands right now it's really already here in a way... You can get a WoW account and get a bunch of people together to act out something.. Not sure how you would capture it but there is always the analog hole and you can voice over, and add your own sound effects in post production....

Some one really just needs to put it all together and go from a simple v1.0 to something really nice....

Re:Bigger is not really the issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29798111)

I've seen some 3d porn

Links or it didn't happen.

Re:Bigger is not really the issue (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#29798675)

I've seen some 3d porn

Links or it didn't happen.

Really? Well sure but rule 34 is always correct you know.

http://www.puretna.com/details.php?id=278828 [puretna.com]

Re:Bigger is not really the issue (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#29799029)

I just figured out you would need an account for that site.. So here is another porn I found on google in 10 seconds -

http://www.exbii.com/showthread.php?t=519243 [exbii.com]

Porn Dimensional Fail (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 4 years ago | (#29816057)

That's not 3D porn. That's stereo porn.

Which supports what I said in the first place; stereo media is easily made, as it's just two flat images or streams of images -- two cameras instead of one -- 3D media, with complete visual information on every angle of a scene, is neither easy to make or readily available unless it is sourced from a computer model.

Re:Porn Dimensional Fail (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#29817333)

That's not 3D porn. That's stereo porn.

Which supports what I said in the first place; stereo media is easily made, as it's just two flat images or streams of images -- two cameras instead of one -- 3D media, with complete visual information on every angle of a scene, is neither easy to make or readily available unless it is sourced from a computer model.

Look man it's even called 3d porn and you're being an idiot... Really, How does your brain perceive 3d? You have two eyes!
What the fuck did you think I was talking about? The star trek holodeck?

Re:Bigger is not really the issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29801055)

make your own

There is a thriving community of 3D cg amateur works out there. YouTube "MMD" or google for "mikomikodance". Add in Vocaloid and some storyline and now you just need profit.

Re:Bigger is not really the issue (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801293)

and now you just need profit.

Profit comes from making movie and animation icons do really fucked up things while hosting your site in some far off hell hole...

Re:Bigger is not really the issue (1)

Cili (687222) | more than 4 years ago | (#29797685)

This looks like it uses a rotating display or mirror. It's not scalable.

More dangerous the bigger it gets (1)

puddles (147314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29798129)

Wouldn't want to be around one when the mirror / imaging plane shatters. Also pity the poor child who manages to get his/her hands past any containment system.

Re:Bigger is not really the issue (1)

TheSync (5291) | more than 4 years ago | (#29798429)

This, or something else truly 3D (as opposed to stereo tech), will no doubt be scalable.

Spinning mirror technology is not scalable. Now if the large spinning mirror could be converted to a flat plane of a large number of small light steering devices (MEMS, electrowetting manipulation of optical films, digital light deflectors, etc), then it would be scalable.

Re:Bigger is not really the issue (1)

physburn (1095481) | more than 4 years ago | (#29801609)

The device is toy, its tiny, the resolution is small. I suppose it might be useful for 3d graphic designers, if they can get real time output into it. But it wouldn't be useful for scene design, just for sprite/character design.

---

3D Graphics [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]

Re:Bigger is not really the issue (1)

lxs (131946) | more than 4 years ago | (#29808263)

Isn't another problem with this tech that the images are more or less transparent?

Voxels near the viewer will not block light from bright voxels behind them. So you can't really do realistic scenes unless you stick to showing items made of non-reflective glass.

Biggest Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29797411)

Will Disney... sell Tinkerbell porn for this?

Re:Biggest Question (1)

BluBrick (1924) | more than 4 years ago | (#29802083)

Oh, I have no doubt that there will be Tinkerbell porn available for it - especially now that YOU have imagined it (Ah rule 34, we meet again), but somehow, I don't think it will be Disney that sells it.

Re:Needs to be bigger (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29797443)

So basicly Sony invented a real world "sprite"

Where I could realy see this getting used is things like center hung scoreboards at sports venues, or concerts. Hopefully the tech scales up that big.

Thou ceiling hung directional and promotion signs in stores is also likely.

Re:Needs to be bigger (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#29797715)

A suit case sized version might be able to display Jefferson Starship in 3d.

Yes, I went with a Star Wars Xmas special reference.

From FTA: (5, Funny)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#29797067)

If you had such a 360 degree 3d display, what would you use it for?

I don't know about anyone else, but I would use mine to project a 3d representation of a crudely drawn penis.

Re:From FTA: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29797183)

And after that it's only a matter of time before the crudely drawn breasts and vaginal lips start popping up (literally).

Re:From FTA: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29797295)

New video device - always equates to PORNs early adaptors . . . but will it hold a good pair of E-Cup or not ... that will dictate success or failure . . . can porn push the device to success?

Re:From FTA: (1)

Interoperable (1651953) | more than 4 years ago | (#29797293)

I wonder what you would use a haptic feedback device for if you had one. The future is gonna be *awesome* (and a little weird).

Re:From FTA: (2, Funny)

selfsealingstembolt2 (1571485) | more than 4 years ago | (#29797337)

You, sir, are truly your generation's Hemingway.

Re:From FTA: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29803429)

It's funny 'cause it's true. "Old man and the sea" has someone urinating over or onto the side of something practically every other page.

Re:From FTA: (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#29797639)

As the FT says,

"The device is quite small..."

Seriously though, at 96 pixels by 128 pixels, your artistic achievement is merely going to look like this |

Or, this being slashdot, perhaps only '

Parentheses (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29797239)

If (only the summary made use of proper parentheses.... *sigh*)

Special President-VICE Richard B. Cheney Memo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29797383)

This device will be great for hunting [shegame.com] my enemies.

Yours In Crime,
Dick

Not Latter (0, Offtopic)

TheSeventh (824276) | more than 4 years ago | (#29797681)

Sony also says it could have a number of applications, such as a digital sign, a digital frame, a medical display, or a virtual pet. Looking at the product image, who else wants to bet on the latter?)

Latter refers to the second of two choices or things mentioned, not the last in a list of things, and I have no idea why there is a close parenthesis at the end of the summary, when there is no corresponding open parenthesis.

Re:Not Latter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29798295)

Long live the grammer nazi's!

Re:Not Latter (1)

vrmlguy (120854) | more than 4 years ago | (#29798837)

You've parsed the sentence wrong. Let me help.

Sony also says it could have a number of applications, such as a digital sign, a digital frame, a medical display, or a virtual pet. Looking at the product image, who else wants to bet on the latter?)

There are two alternatives being discussed. The first (or former) is "a number of applications, such as a digital sign, a digital frame, a medical display", where the conjunction has been elided. The second (or latter) is "a virtual pet", as in "Sony also says it could have a virtual pet." This is indicative of the advanced nature of the design. We should be glad that its pets would be virtual, as a device of such capabilities could easily have human pets. And if such a situation were to come to pass, I, for one, would welcome our new 360 3-D display overlords.

Re:Not Latter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29799797)

Umm, no. Were your parsing correct, then the first clause should have read "a number of applications, such as a digital sign, a digital frame, OR a medical display." The clause as you've identified it is incomplete and requires the presence of the final "or a virtual pet."

A refinement on older technology... (1)

PhantomHarlock (189617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29797701)

The spinning mirror technology has been around for quite some time, I remember seeing demos at Siggraph 10 years ago and it definitely goes farther back than that. Same idea behind the spinning LED clocks you can buy now, except adding a third dimension with a larger LED array and different axis of rotation for the mirror. What is changing now is packaging and integration, and advances in various sub-technologies that make it more viable. As it matures it begins to look like something more useful / fun, and the cost comes down. Obviously the mechanical rotation limits the practicality of the size of the thing, but this could be useful in a few applications, it might compliment the use of stereoscopic vision for medical procedures, and be a fun toy as the poster suggests.

War and Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29797979)

People say that the two things that drive technology are war and porn. This device can be used for both.

Supersize the device and you can use it to display a 3d rendering of a tactical battlespace (submarine warfare, urban combat, mountains terrain, etc.). Or have a life-sized nude stripper dancing in it.

Sounds like you can get lots of money to fund development from the military and from rich dudes with too much money.

The trickle-down effect is that we can also use this for 3-D architectural blueprints, 3-D environmental modeling of the inside of mountains for spelunking, gaming, etc.

"you enter a maze of twisting passages, all alike..."

Re:War and Porn (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 4 years ago | (#29798497)

People say that the two things that drive technology are war and porn.

And games.

Just wait till my PornWars MMO gets released, it will make a killing !
(won't be available in the US, obviously. Or Australia).

POV? (1)

puddles (147314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29798027)

Looks like a more polished version of LED-POV displays that many people have gotten to work already.

I thank you f0r your time (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29798219)

Mire of decay, TCP/IP stack has Stu4id. To the

two possible innovations (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 4 years ago | (#29798779)

1) Removal of flicker. In spinning mirror either mechanics or electronics couldnt really update the outer voxels fast enough, so you'd see flicker.

2) Implementation of the color "black". You can get a void with a spinning mirror, but no absence of light, e.g. black. The picture in the article appears to have lots of black in it.

The more things change... (1)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800193)

Here's how a commercial, usable version of this technology would work. There would be a large tank (called a "holo tank" of course) made of glass, with a bigger rotating mirror. The mirror would probably be 30" diagonal or so. The tank would be evacuated of air so that the rotor could spin quickly without much noise or friction. Due to the internal vacuum, uh, tank the whole assembly would be quite large and heavy. A DLP projector with light from LEDs would project the image onto the rotating mirror. DLP mirrors are more than fast enough to refresh the image the 1000 times a second or so that this display would need.

The whole thing would need an awful lot of glass and fine optics inside it, more than anything from previous generations of technology. I suspect that a mass produced, mass market holo tank with a 30" mirror would cost several thousand dollars.

There would be two kinds of content it would display : one would be 3d content where the image just switches rapidly from left eye to right eye as the mirror spins. Essentially, you'd look at the tank from any angle, but would see the same thing in 3d. Films would be displayed this way.

The other would be true 3d, where if you walk around to the back you would see the back of the object in question. Doing it this way takes a LOT more computing power...but the probably is embarrassingly parallel, such that massively parallel CPUs and graphics cards would be well suited to generating the image.

I don't know if the technology will ever take off, again due to the aforementioned cost. Goggle displays that could create the ILLUSION of a holo tank in front of you would vastly cheaper to manufacture.

CNN already has this.... (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800709)

Didn't they use it to "Beam" their correspondents into their studio on several occasions.....????

Re:CNN already has this.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29805641)

They use the angle of the camera to overlay said video in the appropriate position and rotation-... it wasn't seen in world-....you know what, all hope is lost in trying to explain it to you.

Pimp my ride... (1)

sitarlo (792966) | more than 4 years ago | (#29800839)

I'd have the most dope hood ornament on the block! Actually, these would make sweet xmas ornaments as well.
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...